Spelling Reforms
in English and Plain Language Movement
For
hundreds of years, many groups and individuals have advocated spelling reform
for English. Spelling reformers seek to make English spelling more consistent
and more phonetic, so that spellings match pronunciations better and follow the
alphabetic principle.
Common
motives for spelling reform include making the language easier to learn, making
it more useful for international communication, or saving time, money and
effort.
Spelling
reform proposals can be divided into two main groups: those that use the
traditional English alphabet, and those that would extend or replace it. The
former are more conservative and do not introduce any new letters or symbols.
The latter may involve adding letters and symbols from other alphabets or
creating an entirely new one. Some reformers favor an immediate and total
reform, while others would prefer a gradual change implemented in stages.
Some
spelling reform proposals have been adopted partially or temporarily. Many of
the reforms proposed by Noah Webster have become standard in the United States
but have not been adopted elsewhere (see American and British English spelling
differences). Harry Lindgren's proposal, SR1, was popular in Australia for a
number of years and was temporarily adopted by the Australian Government.
Spelling
reform has rarely attracted widespread public support, sometimes due to
organized resistance and sometimes due to lack of interest. There are a number
of linguistic arguments against reform; for example that the origins of words
may be obscured. There are also many obstacles to reform: this includes the
effort and money that may be needed to implement a wholesale change, the lack
of an English language authority or regulator, and the challenge of getting
people to accept spellings to which they are unaccustomed.
History
After
the invention of the printing press in the 1440s, English spelling began to
become fixed. This took place gradually through printing houses, whereby the
master printer would choose the spellings "that most pleased his
fancy". These spellings then became the "house style". Many of
the earliest printing houses that printed English were staffed by Hollanders,
who changed many spellings to match their Dutch orthography. Examples include
the silent h in ghost (to match Dutch gheest, which later became geest), aghast,
ghastly and gherkin. The silent h in other words—such as ghospel, ghossip and
ghizzard—was later removed.
There
have been two periods when spelling reform of the English language has
attracted particular interest.
16th and 17th centuries
The
first of these periods was between the middle of the 16th century to the middle
of the 17th when a number of publications outlining proposals for reform were
published. Some of these proposals were:
De
recta et emendata linguæ angliæ scriptione in 1568 by Sir Thomas Smith,
Secretary of State to Edward VI and Elizabeth I
An
Orthographie in 1569 by John Hart, Chester Herald
Booke
at Large for the Amendment of English Orthographie in 1580 by William Bullokar
Logonomia
Anglica in 1621 by Dr. Alexander Gill, headmaster of St Paul's School in London
English
Grammar in 1634 by Charles Butler, vicar of Wootton St Lawrence
These
proposals generally did not attract serious consideration because they were of
too radical a nature or were based on an insufficient understanding of the
phonology of English.[4] However, more conservative proposals were more
successful. James Howell in his Grammar of 1662 recommended minor changes to
spelling, such as changing logique to logic, warre to war, sinne to sin, toune
to town and true to tru. Many of these spellings are now in general use.
From
the 16th century onward, English writers who were scholars of Greek and Latin
literature tried to link English words to their Graeco-Latin counterparts. They
did this by adding silent letters to make the real or imagined links more
obvious. Thus det became debt (to link it to Latin debitum), dout became doubt
(to link it to Latin dubitare), sissors became scissors and sithe became scythe
(as they were wrongly thought to come from Latin scindere), iland became island
(as it was wrongly thought to come from Latin insula), ake became ache (as it
was wrongly thought to come from Greek akhos), and so forth.
19th century
An
1879 bulletin by the US Spelling Reform Association, written mostly using
reformed spellings.
A
1880 bulletin, written wholly in reformed spelling.
The
second period started in the 19th century and appears to coincide with the
development of phonetics as a science. In 1806, Noah Webster published his
first dictionary, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language. It included
an essay on the oddities of modern orthography and his proposals for reform.
Many of the spellings he used, such as color and center, would become hallmarks
of American English. In 1807 Webster began compiling an expanded dictionary. It
was published in 1828 as An American Dictionary of the English Language.
Although it drew some protest, the reformed spellings were gradually adopted
throughout the United States.
In
1837, Isaac Pitman published his system of phonetic shorthand, while in 1848
Alexander John Ellis published A Plea for Phonetic Spelling. Both of these were
proposals for a new phonetic alphabet. Although unsuccessful, they drew
widespread interest.
By
the 1870s, the philological societies of Great Britain and America chose to
consider the matter. After the "International Convention for the Amendment
of English Orthography" that was held in Philadelphia in August 1876,
societies were founded such as the English Spelling Reform Association and
American Spelling Reform Association. That year, the American Philological
Society adopted a list of eleven reformed spellings for immediate use. These
were: are→ar, give→giv, have→hav, live→liv, though→tho, through→thru,
guard→gard, catalogue→catalog, (in)definite→(in)definit, wished→wisht. One
major American newspaper that begun using reformed spellings was the Chicago
Tribune, whose editor and owner, Joseph Medill, sat on the Council of the
Spelling Reform Association. In 1883, the American Philological Society and
American Philological Association worked together to produce 24 spelling reform
rules, which were published that year. In 1898, the American National Education
Association adopted its own list of 12 words to be used in all writings. These
were: tho, altho, thoro, thorofare, thru, thruout, catalog, decalog, demagog,
pedagog, prolog, program.
20th century onward
The
Simplified Spelling Board was founded in the United States in 1906. The SSB's
original 30 members consisted of authors, professors and dictionary editors.
Andrew Carnegie, a founding member, supported the SSB with yearly bequests of
more than US$300,000. In April 1906 it published a list of 300 words, which
included 157 spellings that were already in common use in American English. [15]
In August 1906 the SSB word list was adopted by Theodore Roosevelt, who ordered
the Government Printing Office to start using them immediately. However, in
December 1906 the U.S. Congress passed a resolution and the old spellings were reintroduced.
[10] Nevertheless, some of the spellings survived and are commonly used in
American English today, such as anaemia/anæmia→anemia and mould→mold. Others
such as mixed→mixt and scythe→sithe did not survive. In 1920, the SSB published
its Handbook of Simplified Spelling, which set forth over 25 spelling reform
rules. The handbook noted that every reformed spelling now in general use was
originally the overt act of a lone writer, who was followed at first by a small
minority. Thus, it encouraged people to "point the way" and "set
the example" by using the reformed spellings whenever they can. However, with its main source of funds cut
off, the SSB disbanded later that year.
In
Britain, the cause of spelling reform was promoted from 1908 by the Simplified
Spelling Society and attracted a number of prominent supporters. One of these
was George Bernard Shaw (author of Pygmalion) and much of his considerable will
was left to the cause. Among members of the society the conditions of his will
gave rise to major disagreements which hindered the development of a single new
system.
Between
1934 and 1975, the Chicago Tribune, then Chicago's biggest newspaper, used a
number of reformed spellings. Over a two-month spell in 1934, it introduced 80
re-spelt words, including tho, thru, thoro, agast, burocrat, frate, harth,
herse, iland, rime, staf and telegraf. A March 1934 editorial reported that
two-thirds of readers preferred the reformed spellings. Another claimed that
"prejudice and competition" was preventing dictionary makers from
listing such spellings. Over the next 40 years, however, the newspaper
gradually phased-out the re-spelt words. Until the 1950s, "Funk &
Wagnalls" dictionaries listed many reformed spellings, including the SSB's
300, alongside the conventional spellings.
In
1949, a Labour MP, Dr Mont Follick, introduced a private member's bill in the
House of Commons, which failed at the second reading. However in 1953 he again
had the opportunity and this time it passed the second reading by 65 votes to
53. Because of anticipated opposition from the House of Lords, the bill was
withdrawn after assurances from the Minister of Education that research would
be made into improving spelling education. This led in 1961 to James Pitman's
Initial Teaching Alphabet, introduced into many British schools in an attempt
to improve child literacy. Although it succeeded in its own terms, the
advantages were lost when children transferred to conventional spelling and
after several decades the experiment was discontinued.
In
1969 Harry Lindgren proposed Spelling Reform 1 (SR1), which calls for the short
/ɛ/ sound (as in bet) to always be spelt with <e> (for example
friend→frend, head→hed). For a short time, this proposal was popular in
Australia and was adopted by the Australian Government. In Geoffrey Sampson's
book Writing Systems (1985) he wrote that SR1 "has been adopted widely by
Australians. Many general interest paperbacks and the like are printed in SR1;
under Gough Whitlam's Labor Government the Australian Ministry of Helth was
officially so spelled (though, when Whitlam was replaced by a liberal
administration, it reintroduced orthographic conservatism)".
A
prominent spelling reformer in the 2000s is Masha Bell, who has published two
books on the subject, written many published letters and articles, and appeared
on radio and television.
Arguments for reform
It
is argued that spelling reform would make the language easier to learn, raise
literacy levels, and save time, money and effort. Advocates note that spelling
reforms have taken place already, just slowly and often not in an organized
way. There are many words that were once spelled un-phonetically but have since
been reformed. For example, music was spelled musick until the 1880s, and
fantasy was spelled phantasy until the 1920s.[25] For a time, almost all words
with the -or ending (such as error) were once spelled -our (errour) and almost
all words with the -er ending (such as member) were once spelled -re (membre).
In American spelling, most of them now use -or and -er, but in British
spelling, only some have been reformed.
Pronunciations
gradually change and the alphabetic principle that lies behind English (and
every other alphabetically written language) gradually becomes corrupted.
Advocates argue that if we wish to keep English spelling regular, then spelling
needs to be amended to account for the changes.
Ambiguity causes confusion
Unlike
many other languages, English spelling has never been systematically updated
and thus today only partly holds to the alphabetic principle. As an outcome,
English spelling is a system of weak rules with many exceptions and
ambiguities.
Most
phonemes in English can be spelled more than one way. Likewise, many graphemes
in English have multiple pronunciations, such as the different pronunciations
of the combination ught in words like through, though, thought, thorough,
tough, and trough. These kinds of incoherences can be found throughout English
spelling, and naturally cause extra difficulty in learning and practice and
lead to uncertainty because of their sheer number.
Such
ambiguity is particularly problematic in the case of homographs with different
pronunciations that vary according to context, such as bow, desert, live, read,
tear, wind, and wound. Ambiguous words like these make it needful to learn the
right context in which to use the different pronunciations and this raises the
difficulty of learning to read English.
As
an ideal, a closer relationship between phonemes and spellings may nix most of
the exceptions and ambiguities and make the language easier to master. If done
with care, such a reform would not impose an undue burden on mature native
speakers.
Many
English words are based on French modifications (e.g., colour and analogue)
even though they come from Latin or Greek. Spelling reform for sake of
etymology should not be mistaken for phonetic spelling reform, even though both
may come out with the same spellings.
Redundant letters
The
English alphabet has several letters whose characteristic sounds are already
represented elsewhere in the alphabet. These include X, J or G, C or K, and Q.
Obstacles and criticisms
There
are a number of barriers in the development and implementation of a reformed.
Orthography for English:
Public
resistance to spelling reform has been consistently strong, at least since the
early 19th century, when spelling was codified by the influential English
dictionaries of Samuel Johnson (1755) and Noah Webster (1806). English
vocabulary is mostly a melding of Germanic, French, Latin and Greek words,
which have very different phonemes and approaches to spelling. Some reform
proposals tend to favor one approach over the other, resulting in a large
percentage of words that must change spelling to fit the new scheme. The great
number of vowel sounds in English and the small number of vowel letters make
phonemic spelling difficult to achieve. This is especially true for the three
vowels /uː/ (e.g.: fume, moon), /ʌ/ (e.g.: blood, sun) and /ʊ/ (e.g.: look,
put) which are represented in English by only two symbols, oo and u. Spelling
these phonemically cannot be done without resorting to odd letter combinations,
diacritic marks, or new letters.
Some
inflections are pronounced differently in different words. For example, plural
-s and possessive -'s are both pronounced differently in cat (')s (/s/) and
dog(')s (/z/). The handling of this particular difficulty distinguishes
morphemic proposals, which tend to spell such inflectional endings the same,
from phonemic proposals that spell the endings according to their
pronunciation.
English
is the only one of the top ten major languages that lacks a worldwide
regulatory body with the power to promulgate spelling changes. Such a body may
need to be set-up before any worldwide coordinated reform can be undertaken.
The
spellings of some words – such as tongue and stomach – are so unindicative of
their pronunciation that changing the spelling would noticeably change the
shape of the word. Likewise, the irregular spelling of very common words such
as is, are, have, done and of makes it difficult to fix them without
introducing a noticeable change to the appearance of English text. This would
create acceptance issues.
Spelling
reform may make pre-reform writings harder to understand and read in their
original form, often necessitating transcription and republication. Today, few
people choose to read old literature in the original spellings as most of it
has been republished in modern spellings.
Writing conveys meaning, not phonemes
The
main criticism of many purely phonemic reform proposals is that written
language is not a purely phonemic analog of the spoken word. While reformers
might argue that the units of understanding are phonemes, critics argue that
the basic units are instead words. Some of the most phonemic spelling reform
proposals might re-spell closely related words less alike than they are spelt
now, such as electric, electricity and electrician, or (with full vowel reform)
photo, photograph and photography.
Cognates in other languages
English
is a West Germanic language that has borrowed many words from non-Germanic
languages, and the spelling of a word often reflects its origin. This sometimes
gives a clue as to the meaning of the word. Even if their pronunciation has strayed
from the original pronunciation, the spelling is a record of the phoneme. The
same is true for words from Germanic whose current spelling still resembles its
cognates in other Germanic languages. Examples include light/German Licht,
knight/ German Knecht; ocean/French océan, occasion/French occasion. Critics
argue that re-spelling such words could hide those links.
Spelling
reformers argue that, although some of these links may be hidden by a reform,
others would become more noticeable. For example, Axel Wijk's 1959 proposal
Regularized English proposed changing height to Hight which would link it more
closely to the related word high. In some cases, English spelling of foreign
words has diverged from the current spellings of those words in the original
languages, such as the spelling of connoisseur that is now spelled connoisseur
in French after a French-language spelling reform in the 19th century. The
orthographies of other languages do not pay special attention to preserving
similar links to loanwords. English loanwords in other languages are commonly
assimilated to the orthographical conventions of those languages and so such
words have a variety of spellings that are sometimes difficult to recognize as
English words.
Whose accent?
Another
criticism is that a reform might favor one dialect or pronunciation over
others. Some words have more than one acceptable pronunciation, regardless of
dialect (e.g. economic, either). Some distinctions in regional accents are
still marked in spelling. Examples include the distinguishing of fern, fir and
fur that is maintained in Irish and Scottish English or the distinction between
toe and tow that is maintained in a few regional dialects in England.
Reformers
point-out that current English spelling sometimes favors one dialect or
pronunciation over others. For example, the first syllable in simultaneously
can be pronounced like the first syllable in simple (/sɪ/) or like the first
syllable in cycle (/saɪ/), but current spelling favors the former. Reformers
point out that a spelling reform would only affect how we spell words, not how
we say them. After a reform, English would still allow multiple pronunciations
of a standard spelling, as it has always done. Some reformers also suggest that
a reform could actually make spelling more inclusive of regional dialects by
allowing more spellings for such words.
Some
reform proposals try to make too many spelling changes at once and do not allow
for any transitional period where the old spellings and the new may be in use
together. The problem is an overlap in words, where a particular word could be
an unreformed spelling of one word or a reformed spelling of another, akin to
false friends when learning a foreign language.
For
example, a reform could re-spell wonder as wunder and wander as wonder.
However, both cannot be done at once because this causes ambiguity. During any
transitional period, is wonder the unreformed spelling of wonder or the
reformed spelling of wander? This could be resolved by using the old wander
with the new wunder. Other similar chains of words are device → devise →
*devize, warm → worm → *wurm and rice → rise → *rize.
Reformers
argue that, even if this cannot be resolved, the resulting confusion would be
less than what we suffer under today's spelling system, and furthermore, would
be only temporary.
Most
spelling reforms attempt to improve phonemic representation, but some attempt
genuine phonetic spelling, usually by changing the basic English alphabet or
making a new one. All spelling reforms aim for greater regularity in spelling.
Using the basic English alphabet
Common
features:
They
do not introduce any new letters, symbols or diacritics.
They
rely upon familiar digraphs.
They
try to maintain the appearance of existing words.
Notable
proposals include:
· Cut
Spelling
· Handbook
of Simplified Spelling
· SoundSpel
· Spelling
Reform 1 (SR1)
· Extending
or replacing the basic English alphabet
No comments:
Post a Comment