Justificación

5.2.1 Terms used

The term spelling rather than orthography is used in this study to describe variation in texting. This follows the distinction between orthography as the conventions of written languages (determining possible letter-sequences and the phonemes that graphemes represent) and spelling as their application to particular words, so that the way in which we spell words is shaped by orthographic principles (Sebba 2007: 11).2 Despite the similarity of the terms (orthography and spelling), in this investigation of variation in how words are spelt in texting by literate English-speaking people within Britain, it is appropriate to talk of variation in spelling rather than orthographic variation, with the point made that ‗unconventional‘ spellings draw on the same orthographic conventions. Woz, for example, works as a respelling of was because although both follow principles of English orthography, the former adheres more strongly to the expected sound-symbol correspondence.

Terms such as non-standard or deviant spelling appear across the orthography literature (Jaffe 2000; Sebba 2007). However, respellings (as also used by Jaffe 2000 and Sebba 2007) and spelling variants or variation (used by Weber 1986) are preferred in this thesis: not

1 _{See Chapter 7: Wordforms and Phrases; and Chapter 8: Spoken Grammar, Texted Grammar.}

2

This distinction is also maintained, if implicitly, by other researchers (Carney 1994: xvi-xvii; Mitton 1996): Mitton (1996: 2), for example, defining orthography as ‗the way that English is spelt‘.

least because of difficulties in defining ‗standard‘ and hence ‗non-standard‘ (Stubbs 1988; Milroy and Milroy 1991; Wilkinson 1995). For example, definitions of non-standard spelling often recognise not only its departure from codified and prescribed standards but its use in informal, unregulated situations, as in Androutsopoulos‘s (2000: 514) definition of non-standard spelling as:

a general heading for spellings that diverge from standard (codified) orthography and/or do not occur in formal writing.

However, although words tend to have one codified, invariant standard spelling, some escape clear categorisation as standard or non-standard: idiosyncratically-spelt personal names (Carney 1994: 443-466) and product names or logos such as Beanz Meanz Heinz are both permitted unconventional spellings within otherwise highly regulated domains. Also omitted are common initialisms and acronyms such as BBC and UNESCO which occur across mainstream writing (Crystal 2003: 120-1; Weber 1986). These variants often enter dictionaries and can perhaps be included in what Sebba (2007: 30) calls licensed or legitimate variation such as between judgment and judgement, to take Sebba‘s example, or

realize and realise, where ‗conventional norms allow for a choice‘.1 This suggests that focusing on what is non-standard (or unlicensed) may overlook accepted (licensed) forms of spelling variation; while the increasing trend of dictionaries to include ‗informal‘ language complicates the association between the standard and the formal, public sphere:

WYSIWYG and IOU occur in dictionaries but would hardly be acceptable in academic

essays.2 In other words, whether spellings are judged to be ‗standard‘ depends on context.3 Another complication is the notion of (in)correctness that inevitably colours popular perceptions of ‗standard‘ (Wilkinson 1995: 29). Spelling carries acknowledgement of normal or right forms (Sebba 2007: 10): as Kress (2000:1) puts it, spelling is often defined as ‗knowing how to write words correctly‘.4

Kress‘s (2000: 8) distinction between correct and accurate spelling recognises that even where children‘s spelling does not match

1

In contrast to unlicensed spellings, which contravene the standard.

2 _{‗What you see is what you get‘, recently spelt in a school homework assignment as WUSIWUG where you is}

represented as u (Cramb, 2003) and ‗I owe you‘.

3 _{As another example of this, Kress (2000: 139) points out that while children‘s efforts to transcribe what they} hear or to show evaluative meaning through the size or shape of letters may be deemed erroneous, they will encounter similar ‗spellings‘ in the books they read. As this suggests, a model of standard and non-standard spelling cannot adequately account for the occurrence of what many would label ‗misspellings‘ or ‗errors‘ in children‘s writing at school.

4

Although, as Sebba acknowledges, spelling is not always correct: ‗since it is not a contradiction in terms to talk of deviant or unusual spellings‘ (Sebba 2007:1).

codified forms, it can still accurately mean what they intend. Finally, whether or not respellings are ‗standard‘ is less important in this chapter than whether they draw on orthographic principles and reflect usages in other texts, as well as the social meanings conveyed.

This chapter therefore uses the less evaluative terms spelling variants and respellings, to refer neutrally to spelling variants. These terms are also useful in encompassing BBC, UNESCO and IOU, regardless as to whether people consider them standard or correct, and instead focuses on their potential for meaning-making.

5.2.2 Sociocultural model of orthography

The theoretical framework guiding investigation of texted spellings in this chapter is the sociocultural model of orthography outlined and elaborated on by Sebba (2007), and which also underlies, if implicitly, work by researchers such as Jaffe (2000), Androutsopoulous (2000) and Preston (2000). The significance of the model for present purposes lies in the fact that it shows how choices made in spelling are both principled and meaningful. Other discussions of orthography offer descriptive accounts for pedagogical or remedial purposes which focus on sound-spelling correspondence (Carney 1994) and spelling difficulties (Mitton 1997), or historical accounts which explore standardisation and what spellings reveal about earlier pronunciations (Leith 1983; Scragg 1974). 1 Sebba‘s (2007) sociocultural model, however, explores spelling as an integral part of particular societies‘ reading and writing practices which cannot be investigated in isolation from the literacy practices it supports, themselves embedded in wider social and cultural practices (Street 1984).2 Like literacy, orthography can therefore be seen as a social practice, which Sebba (2007) defines as ‗widespread and recurrent activity which involves members of a community [in this case, literate with a common, standardised orthography] in making meaningful choices, albeit from a constrained set of possibilities‘ (Sebba 2007: 31). While

1

See Sebba (2007: 11-12) and Carney (1994: 1-4) for other overviews of the treatment of orthography by linguists and other researchers.

2 _{The extent to which spelling is embedded in ideological notions of literacy is illustrated in clashes in literary} practices between missionaries and indigenous linguists when devising orthographies for previously unwritten Mexican languages (Barros 1995). The missionaries, from societies with solitary and silent book-reading practices, favoured alphabetic Spanish orthography, while indigenous linguists argued for ‗mural texts‘ or ‗wall-newspapers‘ and for a phonemic script, reflecting their focus on collectivity and orality (Barros 1995: 282). Different orthographies supported different literacy practices, emerging from different ideologies (Sebba 2007: 24).

the ‗set of possibilities‘ regarding the form which spelling variants take is ‗constrained‘ because spelling tends to be highly standardised, there is scope for ‗variation and deviation‘ (in Sebba‘s words) and this possibility of variation makes it feasible to call orthography a social practice, assuming that the choice of spelling inevitably carries social meaning. Decisions by individuals or groups to spell according to prescribed usage or to depart from prescription by using respellings to achieve particular effects are thus meaningful.

At the same time, variation from conventional norms must follow language-specific orthographic principles to remain recognisable to the community and thus be effective (Sebba 2007: 32). Unconventional spelling in Willans‘s (1953) Down with the skool (Sebba 2007: 31) makes a rebellious yet humorous point against schooling: yet, to do so, the choice of <skool> conforms to English sound-spelling conventions. In contrast, <zguul>, while recognisable, is not a meaningful deviation from the spelling of school because it does not follow orthographic principles and appears, in Sebba‘s (2007: 31) words, ‗odd or weird‘. In other words, respellings are neither random nor freely chosen but principled (Sebba 2007: 33). Similarly, to ensure readability, respellings are as selective as transcriptions of spoken data are (Jaffe 2000: 501), as Androutsopolous (2000: 528) observes in his study of German fanzines. This paradoxical ‗sameness to‘ yet ‗difference from‘ the standard creates, suggests Jaffe (2000: 506-7), a perpetual tension in that non-standard spelling often represents a stance against standard orthography, or expression of contrasting identity, and yet must operate within principles or conventions established by the standard. Consequently, non-standard spelling is not only constrained by the standard but is often seen (although not by all researchers) as being negatively evaluated in comparison with its legitimate, authoritative counterpart (Jaffe 2000: 499).1 Nonetheless, the restrictions within which respelling operates heightens its potential for meaning-making.

The implication of this is that respelling in texting will follow orthographic principles and therefore reflect or extend existing patterns of respelling. This suggestion is corroborated by Shortis (2007) who describes choices available to texters as an extended orthographic

palette: the extension of traditional ‗binary‘ choices of ‗standard‘ and non-standard‘

spellings to a range of uncodified and potentially meaningful options. Users‘ choices as to which respellings they select from the extended palette, argues Shortis, is constrained by

1

Stigma has, as mentioned in the introduction above, been attached to the abbreviation and phonetic spelling seen in text messaging.

contextual pressures such as their technoliteracy (technical and literary expertise), literacy identity (their beliefs as to how electronic communication should be handled), audience, purpose, context, and physical constraints. Shortis recognises that respellings are, as discussed above, also restricted by existing orthographic principles and so conventions are not new; however, he points out that the widespread use of texting and electronic communication have brought such practices to the public fore (Shortis 2007: 15). The popularisation of respellings is documented by the number of text messages written1 and the level of engagement produced, while the suggestion that spelling practices have been legitimised can be seen in highbrow public debate surrounding Txt. Although, as suggested in the introduction, many commentators deplore it, others laud its merits.2

The present study of respelling extends Shortis‘s work, which is based on limited data, by providing over 11,000 text messages from which respellings are extracted. The following description of respelt forms and conventions, categorised into variants designed to reflect spoken forms and those occurring independently of speech (as in Weber 1986), provides a point of comparison against which respellings in CorTxt can be compared.