Languages, or any other form of expression and communication, are
meaningful only to the extent that they become part of our
existence. When people do not know how to spell words that refer
to their existence, we suspect that something related to the
learning of spelling (usually the learner) does not function as
we assumed it should. (Obviously, literacy is more than
spelling.) School, family, new habits-such as extensive
television viewing, comics reading, obsessive playing of computer
games, Internet surfing, to name some of the apparent
culprits-come under scrutiny. Culture, prejudice, or fear of the
unknown prevents us from asking whether spelling is still a
necessity. Cowardly conformity stops us short from suspecting
that something might be wrong with language or with those
literacy expectations deeply anchored in all known political
programs thrown into our face when our vote is elicited. When
spelling and phonetics are as inconsistent as they are in
English especially, this suspicion led to the examination and
creation of alternative alphabets and to alternative artificial
languages, which we shall examine. But spelling fails even in
languages with more consistent relations between pronunciation
and writing.
Because we inherited, along with our reverence for language, a
passive attitude regarding what is logically permissible under
the guise of literacy, we do not question implicit assumptions
and expectations of literacy. For instance, the belief that
command of language enhances cognitive skills, although we know
that cognitive processes are not exactly reducible to language,
is accepted without hesitation. It is ascertained that literate
people from no matter what country can communicate better and
learn foreign languages more easily. This is not always the
case. In reality, languages are rather loaded systems of
conventions in which national biases and other inclinations are
extensively embodied and maintained, and even propagated, through
speech, writing, and reading. This expectation leads to well
intended, though disputable, statements such as: "You can never
understand one language until you understand at least two"
(signed by Searle).
There is also the implication that literate people have better
access to the arts and sciences. The reason for this is that
language, as a universal means of communication, is consequently
the only means that ultimately explains scientific theories.
Works of art, proponents of language argue, can be reduced to
verbal description, or at least be better accessed through the
language used to index them through labels, classifications,
categories. Another assumption (and prejudice) is that the level
of performance in and outside language is in direct relation to
competence acquired in literacy. This prejudice, from among all
others, will come under closer scrutiny because, though literacy
is declining, language use deviating from that normed by
literacy takes astonishing forms.