Spelling Reform

To be honest, the alphabet is probably the most problematic aspect of the English language. Whenever I ask my pupils what part of English they'd change if they could, they always mention our confusing spelling system. Experts in the field of linguistics also want to change spelling. However, a large number of people have attempted it and failed miserably. "The darkest hieroglyphics or most difficult cyphers" was how eighteenth-century spelling reformer Thomas Spence described English orthography. Ghoti, George Bernard Shaw's last name, has only two sonn.ds in it, but he grumbled that he had to use four letters to spell it because it could be pronounced "fish" (glt as in "rough," o as in "women," ti as in "ammunition"). Through the establishment of a "alphabet trust" through Shaw's will, he sought to encourage a more phonetic spelling of the English language.

The majority of English language planners and commentators have sought to rationalize or simplify the spelling of words since the sixteenth century, but their efforts have been largely unsuccessful. Regardless of the problem of Chinese illegibility, English readers, like their Chinese counterparts, must memorize a plethora of patterns and irregularities in order to communicate effectively. Place names like Cholmondeley or Cirencester (pronounced Chum ley and Sizister), not to mention such common difficulties as the b in "subtle" and "bomb;" the (nigh) in "rough, though;" and "slough;" or the p in "pop, psychology," and "phonetic" itself before they can tackle even the simplest literary texts...

In addition to saving money and effort, phonetic spelling would help youngsters learn to read more rapidly, according to reformers. Foreigners would learn English far more quickly if spelling were taught in a couple of months rather than years. Phonetic, or phonetic, spelling is clearly going to cost us something. Controversial changes in spelling necessitated that books be reissued and that everyone be retrained. Respelling would also conceal the origins and history of our words, making them less understandable. When confronted with this, the reformers responded by claiming that everyone would become temporarily bilingual in terms of spelling, with new generations only learning the more modern spellings of words. There is little purpose for etymology, the spelling reformers pointed out, because the vast majority of English speakers have no idea where our words come from or how they are structured.

Orthographic correction, on the other hand, has more serious drawbacks. There was no consistency in the new spellings, despite their high-minded goals Simplifying double letters like ketl was supported by the American Philological Association. Nonetheless, the double consonant is still present in sapphire, where the ph is respelled as if. Decked and thanked both have the last consonant sound of t despite the absence of the silent e, yet decked has been spelled deckd while thankt has been spelled thanks. Greater still is the problem that a phonetic writing system can only succeed at the exiiense of standard spelling because the sounds of speech are constantly changing, albeit gradually, and because pronunciation varies not only with time but also with geography, educational level and class and situation among others. Compendious Dictimary of 1806, Noah Webster stated that our unwillingness to let spelling and pronunciation change together with each other "is destroying the benefits of an alphabet, and reduces our language to the barbarism of Chinese characters rather than letters," In addition to Webster, many of our schools and dictionaries, along with the general public, have long and hard fought for the aim of standardized spelling, one that they are unlikely to give up in the near future.