Is Spelling Reform a Shovel-Ready Project?

In response to our recent article on the alphabet ("From A to Z"), an astute reader observed that English spelling was overdue for reform:

It could be down to my lack of understanding of how the English language works, but if words were to be taken just on the basis of the way they sound, it seems English actually could benefit from introduction of marks of accents, or diacritics, [as in the] case of some alphabets; for example, car and cat, jar and rat, but and put, and most probably many more.

It seems that an investment of time and money officially would just not be out of place in order to systematically incorporate all the sounds and make it easier to pronounce such words rather than having to rely on rote learning.

Our friend isn't the first to point out the peculiarities of English spelling (see Gerard Nolst Trenité's poem "The Chaos") or the advantages of aligning spelling with pronunciation.

For centuries the hybrid orthography of English (largely the result of the collision of two distinct spelling systems--those of Old English and Norman French) has inspired countless reformers to concoct new phonologically based alphabets. Benjamin Franklin, for example, suggested replacing the letters c, j, q, w, x and y with two new vowels and four new consonants. George Bernard Shaw championed an alphabet made up of 40 letters. More recently, the Simplified Spelling Society has endorsed a system known as Cut Spelling, wich removs redundnt letrs.

Noah Webster's Spelling Campaign

So far, the only remotely influential exponent of spelling reform in English has been the American lexicographer Noah Webster. Four decades before publishing the first edition of his American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), Webster spelled out a plan to renovate American English:

The principal alterations, necessary to render our orthography sufficiently regular and easy, are these:

1. The omission of all superfluous or silent letters; as a in bread. Thus bread, head, give, breast, built, meant, realm, friend, would be spelt, bred, hed, giv, brest, bilt, ment, relm, frend. Would this alteration produce any inconvenience, any embarrassment or expense? By no means. On the other hand, it would lessen the trouble of writing, and much more, of learning the language; it would reduce the true pronunciation to a certainty; and while it would assist foreigners and our own children in acquiring the language, it would render the pronunciation uniform, in different parts of the country, and almost prevent the possibility of changes.


2. A substitution of a character that has a certain definite sound, for one that is more vague and indeterminate. Thus by putting ee instead of ea or ie, the words mean, near, speak grieve, zeal, would become meen, neer, speek, greev, zeel. This alteration could not occasion a moments trouble; at the same time it would prevent a doubt respecting the pronunciation; whereas the ea and ie having different sounds, may give a learner much difficulty. Thus greef should be substituted for grief; kee for key; beleev for believe; laf for laugh; dawter for daughter; plow for plough; tuf for tough; proov for prove; blud for blood; and draft for draught. In this manner ch in Greek derivatives, should be changed into k; for the English ch has a soft sound, as in cherish; but k always a hard sound. Therefore character, chorus, cholic, architecture, should be written karacter, korus, kolic, arkitecture; and were they thus written, no person could mistake their true pronunciation.
   
   Thus ch in French derivatives should be changed into sh; machine, chaise, chevalier, should be written masheen, shaze, shevaleer; and pique, tour, oblique, should be written peek, toor, obleek.


3. A trifling alteration in a character, or the addition of a point would distinguish different sounds, without the substitution of a new character. Thus a very small stroke across th would distinguish its two sounds. A point over a vowel . . . might answer all the purposes of different letters. And for the dipthong [sic] ow, let the two letters be united by a small stroke, or both engraven on the same piece of metal, with the left hand line of the w united to the o.

These, with a few other inconsiderable alterations, would answer every purpose, and render the orthography sufficiently correct and regular.
(Noah Webster, "An Essay on the Necessity, Advantages and Practicability of Reforming the Mode of Spelling, and of Rendering the Orthography of Words Correspondent to Pronunciation" in Dissertations on the English Language, 1789)

As you've probably noticed, only a small number of Webster's proposed spellings were ever adopted. Masheen and dawter quickly came to grief (never greef), but plow and draft have endured in American English. And it's true that most of the distinctive features of American spelling (such as the missing u in words like honor and favor) can be credited to the influence of Webster's best-selling Grammatical Institute of the English Language (popularly known as the "Blue-Backed Speller").

Kash for Konsonants?

But let's return to our reader's recommendation that "time and money" be "officially" invested in spelling reform. Before you scoff, consider that over the past century government-supported reforms of this kind have been carried out successfully in Germany, Austria, the old Soviet Union, the Netherlands, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, and elsewhere.

Now, with the global expansion of English as a lingua franca and unemployment in double digits, has the time for spelling reform come round at last? Are we ready to put the legion of laid-off journalists and phoneticians back to work sounding out alternative spelling schemes? Do we have the collective will to implement a system in which the digraph ou represents just one sound, not six or seven (young, though, through, thought, out, enough, lough)? Can we at last overcome our sentimental attachment to what Mark Twain called our "rotten spelling" and that "foolish" and "drunken old alphabet"?

Probably not. But let's hear your thoughts on the subject of spelling reform. Just klik on th koments butn belo.

More About English Spelling:

• Writers on English Spelling
• The Story Behind the Spell Checker Poem
• The 200 Most Commonly Misspelled Words in English

Image: Noah Webster (1758-1843)