Brazier 1

From ENGL 452 History of the English Language taught by Dr. Bruce Maylath Spring 2012

I will never forget how my classmates laughed when one of my peers in high school, while reading aloud a passage of literature, pronounced the name Beatrice as beat rice. She was the only one who had not already learned that even though the two are spelled the same way, they are pronounced differently. English orthography is difficult, and George Bernard Shaws famous spelling of fish as ghoti makes a strong statement about spelling inconsistencies. Certainly many other words in the English language have become stumbling blocks for readers and writers as pronunciations change through the decades despite their frozen orthographies. As a result of this growing apart, many English scholars have pushed for a spelling reform in order to bridge the gap between phonetics and orthography. However, despite the numerous attempts at spelling reforms throughout American history, a pattern of linguistic identity and resistance to change in English speakers spans across the decades, indulging few orthographic reformers to date and leaving little hope for future reform efforts.

Many of the most adamant advocates for a spelling reform are primarily concerned with spelling in relation to phonetics. Examples such as enough, psychology, and women often generate arguments on the inconsistencies of English spelling. Noah Webster, one of the earliest reformers, acknowledged outright the dangers of extremity either for or against reforms; instead, he proposed a position somewhere in between (Anson 45). Extremely successful in his changes to English spellings, Webster was one of the first to provide a dictionary for American English. American English, at that point, was in need

Brazier 2 of direction and stability, searching for standards independent of British English, which is exactly what Webster provided. Not too extreme in his methods and offering changes at a time when English users needed and wanted them, Websters influence stuck, unlike that of contemporaries who hope to reform English spelling to represent purely phonetics.

Some advocates of a spelling reform, however, have argued that languages that are more phonemic than morphemic, such as Spanish, are advantageous in the realm of education. Because they are more consistent orthographically, other languages are easier for children to learn, and some reform advocates fear the United States may fall behind in education: a cross-European team led by Professor Philip Seymour from Dundee University, which investigated literacy acquisition rates in 13 languages, concluded in 2003 (British Journal of Psychology): Children from a majority of European countries become accurate and fluent in foundation level reading before the end of the first school year. ....The rate of development in English is more than twice as slow (The English Spelling Society). The difference in reading rates is significant enough to show that, indeed, more consistent, phonetic, systems are easier to learn than less phonetic systems.

However, many of the irregularities of spelling in relation to phonetics exist for a valid reason: they are based on morphemes, and though pronunciation has changed, the meanings represented by those morphemes have not. English is a morphophonemic

Brazier 3 orthography. To read English correctly, knowledge is required, and readers must have at least a subconscious understanding of both phonetics and the meaning of morphemes in order to understand English (Fromkin 526). Because words take meaning in morphemes, words that include the same morphemes orthographically reflect a relationship in meaning. For this reason, words like debt may remind us of the related word debit, in which the b is pronounced. The same principle is true in pairs such as sign/signal, bomb/bombardier (Fromkin 526). Making those connections helps those learning the language, and according to the director of the E.L. Cord Foundation Center for Learning and Literacy at the University of Nevada, Reno, "Students come to understand how meaning is preserved in the way words are spelled" (Superville). Therefore, hardships in phonetic discrepancies are offset by the helpful morpheme relationships, and changing spellings in order to meet phonetic convenience could forfeit meaning represented in morphemes, and such pairs would be mismatched. Readers and writers would be less likely to see the shared meaning in sine and signature, or det and debit. If English sacrifices these morphemes, the spellings may seem even more haphazard than how they started.

In addition, educators, who currently hold much of the responsibility in establishing and maintaining standard spelling, may not be supportive of a new spelling standard. Teachers may be unwilling to cooperate in a reform partially because they would bear most of the work: Michael Marks, a member of the National Education Association's executive committee, said learning would be disrupted if children had to switch to a different spelling system. It may be more trouble than it's worth, said Marks, a debate

Brazier 4 and theater teacher at Hattiesburg High School in Mississippi (Advocates Push for Simpler Spelling). Further, teachers would have to tolerate whatever reaction parents may have. Because parents generally expect that their children are educated in Standard English, and because Spelling habits are hard to change, and many people regard revised spelling as substandard, parents and teachers alike may not approve of a spelling reform taught in schools (Fromkin 525). In addition, parents and teachers may not be willing to abandon the Greek and Latin origins and spellings in English, especially because our society is still living out the effects of the Norman Conquest, respecting Latinate and French language, spellings, and vocabulary. Teachers are likely to protest the loss of this tradition, at least subconsciously, and parents, who are even less aware of sociolinguistics and linguistic history may see the language and spelling change as informal, inelegant, and a deviation from the standard. In fact, even the Spelling Society exhibits these tendencies, describing language change since Chaucers time as diluted and corrupted, reminiscing better spellings (The English Spelling Society). If the very society pushing for change is subconsciously resisting change, the English language has little hope for unanimous consent to change, ultimately causing even more spelling inconsistencies.

In addition to conflicted views of language change, educators must consider the functions of the English language in their decisions about spelling and a potential spelling reform as appropriate for English. Many reform enthusiasts compare education in English to that of languages such as Finnish and Korean. Certainly the latters fewer than 44 spellings are simpler to master than English spellings, but an important

Brazier 5 difference exists between English and languages such as Finnish and Korean: both Finnish and Korean function, primarily, for use within their own borders (The English Spelling Society). Contrarily, English speakers, readers, and writers, live all around the world and each bring their own pronunciations. A global language with an updated standard spelling based on chiefly on phonetics would be problematic for existing dialects, regional differences, and varieties. Because English has an ever increasing amount of varieties, choosing which pronunciations to base a standard spelling on would be counterproductive; it would discourage uniformity of English speakers and draw new lines of prestige. Because language is used to express identity, selecting any one dialect as the new standard simultaneously labels all others inferior, or substandard. For this reason, many people may choose to identify with their own dialect, create their own spellings, or hold to the traditional spellings as a way of resisting labels and maintaining pride in their linguistic identity.

Norways spelling and language reform, along with its consequences, offer a model of what reformers could expect. Norway came to having two official written languages through attempts to de-Danicize the language after Norway gained independence (The English Spelling Society). Nynorsk, one of Norways official languages, was started by Ivar Aasen, who hoped to empower dialects and embed Norwegian culture and history into the language. Contrarily, Knud Knudson proposed to modify the standard Danish spelling in such a way that it more closely reflected Norwegian speech, which is now called bokml, meaning book language (The English Spelling Soceity). Weathering several reforms, the Norwegian people became frustrated and conflicted

Brazier 6 because laws accompanying the two official languages muffled Norwegians ability to make personally optimum language choices for prestige, communication, and identity; even usages became confusing: Nynorsk had, for example, one variant of the definite article (feminine gender), bokml had another, and yet a third variant was actually spoken by people in the main population centres of the South-East. Here issues of spelling became perfectly confounded with issues of the acceptability of spoken linguistic forms per se, and this confusion has dogged the Norwegian reformers throughout (The English Spelling Society). Spelling reforms are intended to ease confusion, not instigate it. Though English is not attached to the same kind of political upheaval involved in Norways reforms, some of the consequential confusions and divisions could happen for English speakers not only in the United States, but among several English-speaking nations and around the world. In order for English to function as a lingua franca, English cannot be officially divided.

Further, in order to institute a spelling reform, some authority would need to be established. Who would be qualified to dictate the spelling of what has now become the global language? For languages used in only a few countries, such as Norwegian, the respective countrys government would be an appropriate authority to enforce reforms. However, because English has no official Language Council, and because almost every country would need a representative, the task of reforming English spelling would be monstrous.

Brazier 7

If English spelling is reformed, how many changes should be made? Deciding how much reform is enough reform is also an issue. In fact, overzealous editing in the past is, in part, to blame for many of the complicated spellings in English today: Because of their reverence for Classical Greek and Latin, these scholars changed the spelling of English words to conform to their etymologies. Where Latin had a b, they added a b even if it was not pronounced (Fromkin 524). Some people may want to preserve the vestiges of Latin, while other may want to wipe them all out. Drawing a line on how many changes to make to English spelling may be just as controversial as whether or not changes should be made at all. The task of assembling a language council that could agree on changes is yet another obstacle, and beyond that, prevention of such a councils corruption.

Even if a language council or other authority could be established for English, the example of other countries is a warning that instituting a reform can be dangerous. Clashing with local identity and linguistic security, spelling reforms have struggled in the face of passionate resistance: Measures to simplify German spelling were rejected by newspapers such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine, and defeated in a referendum in Schleswig-Holstein (though later endorsed by its legislature). A similar fate befell the Dutch, when opponents of the governments 1996 Green Book on spelling (Groene Boekje) released a rival Witte Boekje. French reforms in the 1990s didnt get off the

Brazier 8 runway, despite being presented as mere rectifications, and attempts this year to bring European and Brazilian Portuguese into line were denounced in Portugal as capitulation to its powerful ex-colony (You Write Potato, I Write Ghoughpteighbteau). A strong pattern of resistance to spelling reforms spans across languages and nations, partly because language is very personal, and partly because communication is still possible using old spelling systems.

A well-known attempt at spelling reformation in the United States is that attempted by the Chicago Tribune in 1934, which attempted to win over the public by printing in shortened, phonetic spellings (Benzkofer). Colonel Robert McCormick, hoping the newspaper would pioneer sanespellings, insisted on publishing them despite the risk of unpopularity, But nobody said no to McCormick, and Tribune readers had to get used to spellings such as burocrat, clew, drouth, hocky, skilful, sofomore, thru, tho and thoro. Other spellings that McCormick pushed have since become accepted, such as catalog, analog, dialog, harken and canceled (Benzkofer). However, the endeavor ended in 1975, thru was through and so was tho, Tribune editors wrote, as it became clear the public wasn't following their lead (Benzkofer). The Chicago Tribunes failed efforts to facilitate change are not the only of their kind if United States history.

George Bernard Shaw and former President Theodore Roosevelt were also advocates for spelling reforms. However, even they made little impact on English orthography.

Brazier 9 Shaw, primarily a writer, was open about his disgust for English spelling, and in an attempt to reform it, left funds in his will to create a new alphabet (Twilley). Of course, the idea sparked interested for a while, but soon fizzled out without establishing any changes. Similarly, Roosevelt pushed for reform while he was in office, but Congress rescinded[his] executive order to use 300 simplified spellings in government publications (Gogate). These and many others went to great lengths to see only minimal results, mostly because their proposed goals were unnecessary for the American population. Though such spellings would be simpler, American English speakers already had a language that satisfied their needs.

An official spelling reform would certainly make English easier to learn, but such a reform would require the participation of the presently unwilling English speaking population, as encountered by the Chicago Tribune, Shaw, and Roosevelt. A simplified, updated spelling reform would force everyone who has already learned to speak and spell in English to change their ways to make the language easier for others; the work of the reform would fall to those who do not need it. Such a reform, already proving unpopular, would serve those who already speak and spell English no purpose. Even though the new, simple spellings would require fewer rules, exceptions, and surprises than the current spellings, the effort would seem wasted as the population can already communicate with each other and has no immediate need for even more complications. In addition, many of the proposed simpler spellings and ideas make sense only because we know the current spellings, meanings, and pronunciations. For example hav a gr8 day is a popular spelling of have a great day that uses the number eight. If

Brazier 10 the intent is to make language and spelling less work, then pushing not only English speakers in the United States, but speakers all over the globe as well, to learn all new spellings and rules may be thought counterproductive.

Remaining in its current spelling system, the English language has several advantages. Because spelling inconsistencies are not manipulated into any kind of system, English users are able to adopt words from other languages, create new words, and create variations of existing words. English also has a rich history of literature that would be inaccessible to future generations if a spelling reform took place. Famous works and classic literature that have been taught for decades in high schools would be, to future generations, like reading Beowulf now, completely foreign and almost unintelligible without extensive training. Though simplicity is a valid goal, the English language has a lot to lose in the event of a spelling reform.

Languages, like the people who use them, are always changing. Seeking to reform English, a rapidly expanding language constantly adapted to new settings, people, and places, may be likened to chasing the wind. If a reform did somehow transcend all of the forces against it, the updated, phonetic consistency would last only as long as the variety it was based on remained unchanged. As soon as the spoken language shifts, the written language, if reformed to fit the spoken language, would again be behind, phonetically deceiving, and confusing, and another reform would be called for. Rather than pursue a moving target, English would be best suited to maintain its current

Brazier 11 spellings and enjoy the advantages of a language containing morphemes, a language facilitating local identity, a language going global.

Brazier 12 Works Cited Advocates Push for Simpler Spelling. StarTribune 5 Jul. 2006. Web. 1 May 2012. Anson, Chris M. Errours and Endeavors: A Case Study in American Orthography. International Journal of Lexicography. 3.1. (1990): 44-45. Print. Benzkofer, Stephan. Don't Be Agast (Or Even Aghast)! Tribune Once Trifled with Standard Spelling. Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune, 29 Jan. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2012. Carter, James. "English Spelling Reform." Prometheus 24.1 (2006): 81 100. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 Feb. 2012. Crystal, David. The Stories of English. Overlook: New York, 2004. Fromkin, Victoria, Rodman, Robert, and Nina Hyams. An Introduction to Language. 8th ed.Boston: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007. Print. Gogate, M. N. Simplified Global English. A Parallel Language for the World. Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society. J.31. (2002): 11-2. Web. 1 May 2012. Holmes, Neville. "Quasireform Of English Spelling." Computer 39.8 (2006): 102104. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 Feb. 2012. "Let Me Spell It Out: We're Never Going To Change." Times Educational Supplement 4795 (2008): 2. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 Feb. 2012.

Brazier 13 Sebba, Mark. Spelling and Society: The Culture and Politics of Orthography Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007. Print. Superville, Darlene. Push For Simpler Spelling Persists. Associated Press, 5 Jul. 2006. Web. 17 Oct. 2011. The English Spelling Society: Improving English Spelling. The English Spelling Society, 2011. Web. 16 Feb. 2012.

Twilley, Nicola, and Geoff Manaugh. Six New Letters for a Renovated Alphabet. St. Bride Library. St. Bride Foundation, 2005. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.

"You Write Potato, I Write Ghoughpteighbteau." Economist 388.8593 (2008): 57. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 Feb. 2012.