Technology and Language: Spell Check

First, a poem from "Candidate for a Pullet Surprise," The Journal of Irreproducible Results:

I have a spelling checker
It came with my PC.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot sea.
A checker is a bless sing,
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right awl stiles to reed,
And aides me when aye rime.
To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should bee proud,
And wee mussed dew the best wee can,
Sew flaws are knot aloud.


What really is spell check? That spell check actually checks your spelling is a misnomer, because when you run spell check on your computer, you are asking it to compare the words you have typed to the computer's internal dictionary. That means if a word is not in the computer's dictionary, such as places, last names, and unique first names (like our own Miyaunna) the computer will consider it misspelled, even though it is correct. My last name is considered spelled incorrectly on OpenOffice.org (running on my Linux computer). Suggestions for correct spelling include Shortener, Softener, Schooner, and my favorite, Shotgunner. However, as I am just noticing, on Windows XP/Mozilla Firefox/Blogger, Shortener and Shotgunner are spelled "incorrectly."

As with the poem above, it is apparent that spell check does not check content. Using an incorrect word (due for do, sew for so, knot for not and so on), will escape the notice of a spell checker - like when I meant to type ganging up and typed gaining up instead, and didn't realize it until Kyle so "graciously" pointed it out. Being able to check grammar in a word processing document may be one way to make sure that your grammar is correct, but it is not fail-proof, just as spell check is not. Computers do not think for themselves - they have been programmed to process information in a specific way. Grammar and spelling are not always cut and dry - consider Kyle's post about a vs an, and how under different circumstances, both an historic and a historic can be correct. Grammar evolves, new words are born, and computers may not have this updated knowledge. There is no substitute for human proof-reading - whether we realize it or not, we instinctively know more about own language than a computer does.

With all the negatives of spell check out of the way, I will say that used with the correct frame of mind, spell check can be very beneficial. As Miyaunna said in her comment about the poll results for what kind of influence you think spell check has had on our knowledge of language, spell check keeps her on her toes. When you are already a decent speller, spell check serves more as a time saver to clue you in if you have misspelled a word, or if, as it happens to me often, typing too fast causes you to mix up letters within a word. And spell check also allows you to see how a word should be spelled, which can help you with spelling in the future as long as you learn from your mistakes (as opposed to just letting the spell check correct your spelling without bothering to learn the correct spelling).

Spell check has had an influence on language - whether it is perceived as negative or positive is debatable depending on how you view the situation. Could you imagine a world without spell check? How would it affect you?