Annette Gebhardt

Why don’t “comb,” “tomb,” and “bomb” rhyme? Why do “they”, “say,” and “weigh” rhyme?

Outline

1. Introduction to the Simplified Spelling Society

2. History of the English language.

3. Why English spelling is so difficult

Introduction

The Simplified Spelling Society was organized in Great Britain in the year 1908. The

goal of the society is to standardize English spelling in order to promote and improve

literacy. The members of the society contend that spelling in the English language

is too difficult and could be simplified by discarding the current rules and converting to a

completely phonetic system. They continue to publish books, journals and leaflets.

History of the English language

• Old English developed with influences from Denmark, Norway and Germany.

• Norman French, a dialect of Old French, became the official language of England after William the Conqueror conquered England in 1066, replacing Old English which was spoken by only the lower classes.

• In 1399 Henry IV became the first king in 3 centuries to reign speaking English instead of Norman French.

• The English language continued to change. Attempts to standardize English followed French rules.

• During the Renaissance, Latin and Greek started to influence English.

• In 1755 Samuel Johnson developed a dictionary and spelling has changed little since then.

Why English Spelling is so Difficult

The difficulty in the English spelling system is due in part to the complicated rules of

spelling, and then the numerous exceptions to these rules.

• The English language is broken into 90 basic spelling patterns and 84 of these

patterns have exceptions.

• The 90 basic spelling patterns are ignored in over 3500 common words.

• The English system is complicated because it is based on memorization and not phonetics.

References:

Templeton, S., & Morris D. (2001, October). Reconceptualizing Spelling Development and Instruction. Reading Online, 5(3).

Groff, P. (1994). Recent spelling research: Some implications for spelling reform. JSSS, 16 (1), 3-7.

Ehri, L. C. (1989). The development of spelling knowledge and its role in reading acquisition and reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 222, 356-365.

Groff, P. (1986). The implications of developmental spelling research: A dissenting view. Elementary School Journal, 86, 317-323.

Kelly, T. F. (1992). Spelling: Tyranny of the irrelevant. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 638-640.

External Links:

http://www.spellingsociety.org/

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/English_spelling_reform

http://www.protonmedia.de/users/raeder/spelling/spellingsociety.htm

http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/pron-spelling.htm

http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/humor/spelling-standardization

http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/hel/hel.html

http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ortho.html

Hi Annette,

Your article contains very informative and useful information. I would like to talk first about APA style.

Comments by Clark Barrow

APA style requires references in the reference page only if they are cited in the article. In this case, there are no citations in the article so there cannot be references. What we have here is instead a bibliography page that includes some referenced works. See pg. 215 & 216 of the APA Manual.

Here are a few sentences worth including to strengthen your statements. These pieces bring to light the controversy about the topic.

There was an article in The Morning Leader, an issue on August 16, 1901, in London, titled, “Spelling Reform v. Phonetic Spelling: A Plea for Speech Nationalisation.” This article was a “polemical rejoinder” (Pitman & Tucker, 1963, p. 9) (a controversial reply) to two previous articles written in 1901. In both articles – one written by Brander Matthews and one by William Archer --- the authors dismissed the notion of an abrupt change in orthography and instead supported a gradual revision. Matthews even commented that orthography in the United States was much better than in Great Britain. He said the United States’ orthography “is in a healthier state than it is in Great Britain, where there is a closer approximation to a deadening uniformity." (p. 9). Matthews’ statement suggests the change in orthography in Great Britain is worse than the United States’ and he even invokes criticism by referring to it as “a deadening uniformity” (p. 9).

George Bernard Shaw made a profound statement about the United States’ orthography and explicitly stated his thoughts. He said, ‘“You must either let our spelling alone or else reform it phonetically." This was and is the position of the British Simplified Spelling Society, although they would prefer the word phonemically to describe their "World English Spelling."’(Pitman & Tucker, 1963, p. 10). Furthermore, Shaw “used orthodox spellings for the most part” (p. 10) in his writings and advocated a “completely new alphabet for the English language” (p. 10).

Shaw’s thoughts do not go without rebuttal. Johnston (2000) claims Shaw used his spelling ghoti for fish to demonstrate how “exasperating English spelling could be” (Johnston, 2000, p. 1). However, Johnston says Shaw’s attempt to poke fun at spelling was overshadowed by Shaw ignoring the exceptional spellings of English. Johnston states this ignorance was an oversight of “an important aspect of English” (p. 1).

Two newspaper publishers’ radical attempts to change orthography were finally dashed by the public’s failure to follow suite. “The Chicago Tribuneand the Washington Times-Harold, indulged in such simplifications ad demagog, ameba, midriff, fotografer, frate (for “freight”)” (Pei, 1968, p. 119). The dilemmas of the Spelling Society still exist as some people try to continue changes and some oppose such changes.

Johnston, F. R. (2000). Spelling exceptions: Problems or possibilities? The Reading Teacher, 54(4), 372.

Pei, M. (1968). One language for the world. New York: Biblo and Tannen.

Pitman, J. (1963). On language (A. Tauber, Ed.). New York: Philosophical Library.

My note about my own references: Pei and Pitman are both secondary sources. I am not sure how far back one can go to get out of the need for original sources, which is what Johnston’s article is. However, the changes in English orthography stretch back at least to the late 18th century and it seems logical that some books would be acceptable as resources. What are your thoughts about this?

End of Comments by Clark E. Barrow

Hello Annette,

Comments by June Kent

End of Comments by June Kent

Annette,

I really like the historical background that you provided for your topic and the links. I think it would have been really interesting if you had a chance to explore (or at least include) how English (with the combination of the various languages) is really not and can never solely be a phonetically based language. Learning how to spell and read English is heavily dependent upon one's grasp of the meaning or semantics of written words. According to the Templeton & Morris (2000)article that we read last week in class, English consist of three layers: the alphabetic, pattern, and meaning layers (p. 2). The last one, the meaning layer, is significant here because it "reflects the fact that word parts that are related in meaning are usually spelled consistently, despite changes in pronunciation" (p. 2), revealing that English is not as hard to understand if the "secrets" behind the meaning layer can be uncovered by good reading teachers.