SPELLING REFORM.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1085, 25 March 1911, Page 9

SPELLING REFORM.

i The members of the English Association met,in London last month to.discuss phonetic spelling. Tho discussion was interesting and spirited. Mr. Bernard Shaw, who, among so many other things, is a spelling reformer, made a breezy speech full of stimulating suggestion's. The discussion was opened by Mr. Daniel Jones, who argued the caso for phonetic spelling with moderation. He emphasised the value of a settled system of phonetic spelling ,in recording languages not previously written down, like tho African languages. Theso languages were often misrepresented because tho missionaries who collected them had no training in phonetics. As to the application of phonetics to spelling reform, he pointed out that the spelling of the English language was originally phonetic, but owing to tho great, changes in pronunciation tho accepted spelling had become greatly removed from the phonetic reality. An unnecessary burden was in consequence thrown upon children learning-to read, qjid tho present immense discrepancy bfetween spelling and pronunciation was a great hindrauco to tho spread of our language in.foreign parts. As to the arguments against phonetic spelling, there was the conservative objection, tho etymological objection (which been exploded), and tho aesthetic argument, which should by no means be treated lightly. But there was strong reason to believe that if a complete scheme of spelling reform were now drawn up on scientific lines, it would be more favourably received than formerly. There had been a rarjid spread of spelling reform in tho last few years, and now tho Board of Education had included phonetics as a voluntary part (of tho course f|Or' t'he' training of teachers. As to methods of reform; - he thought that it was impracticable to set up an entirely now system of phonetic writing based on one sound one symloi. 'Tho difficulties of introducing the new letters that would bo necessary would bo insuperable. Not much good would be done by introducing Bmall reforms by degrees, on tho lines of the American Simplified Spelling Board. Reform could only bo brought about by a, jump—by introducing as thorough-going a system as it was possible to have without introducing new letters, probably by new combinations of the existing letters to represent certain sounds not expressed in the acceptI ed 'spelling.

Professor Rippmann urged that it was in . the" interests of the g;eat mass of the people that spelling should be simplified. It _ would save an immense amount of time wasted in the school, in learning the present illogical system, and would , help children to realise the pronunciation of their own tongue. He thought it impossible to impose a fixed system of phonetic spelling on all the English-speaking peoples. What was wanted was phonetics .tempered by common sense. "It is not likely," he added, "that we shall be able to persuade the country'to make a holocaust of all existing books." Phonetic spelling was., he admitted, of value in the teaching of modern languages.

Mr. William Archer, speaking, he gfiid, as one concerned in some small practical propaganda, said lie thoifght that if they tried to introduco a scientifically accurate system of spellingthey iron Id ah once discover the large differences in the practice of pronunciation, of which some of them seemed to be more or less, unconscious. He was told, for instance, that thore was no phonetic difference between "for" and "fore," and he had not been able to settle' the point, although ho had gono to Oxford—where, he was told, the pronunciation was very good. (Laughter!) On the whole, ho.would prefer the present chaotic systdm to a scientifically accurate notation, because that would lead to breaking uj> the differences of language in different districts. Language was only kept together by the fact of its having a more or less conventional notation kept before us in books/ '"It_ is said," Mr. Archer added, speaking of our "absurd" spelling, "that it is well to have something for the children to break tlieir_ minds upon. I think children do literally break their minds upon our spiling. People who sreue like that forget that the world is full of interesting and important difficulties v.'ith which we ham to contend, and why children should waste a }'<?ar of so of precious time unon spelling is more . than I can understand. If v.'e had reform the school life of orir children would be practically lengthened by a year and a half." Professor Skeat, tliD veteran scholar, Said he-was willing to'accept almost any-thing-if they could only get a little bit forwarder". The movement was started thirty yen n; ago, when Dr.' Sv/oefc drew lip" a'scheme, and the reason why that scheme failed was that the English people didn't 'know enough of their own language te bo able to see that it was a good scheme. (Laughter.) The history, of every word was the historv of its pronunciation; f' lc spoken and not the written word was the real and living word, and reform must proceed bv getting some fairly.good representation of the spoken sound. The reason for the,present spelling of 'ords was to ht- found in the history of the pronunciation. and the violent changes in pronunciation since Chaucer had made

modern spelling antiquated. "We want to mako language phonetic," lie added, "bccaiise it used to bo phonetic." Ho mentioned that tho "a" sound in "aim" is represented in twenty different way 3 in English spelling. 'Wh'at you want," said Mr. Bernard Shaw in liis brisk speech, "is not further technical knowledge, but some common r-ense." To have phonetic spelling there must bo a fixed standard of some kind. ,It was useless to try to find tho lino of least resistance by means of an "easy" .syt-em; tho plan of having a system which departed as little as possible from tlio accepted spelling would prove to be the lino of most resistance. It would bo far better to introduce new letters, as indeed would bo necessary for phonetic spelling. There was no difficulty about a universal standard. Thirty years ago tho nation had, in tho speech of Queen Victoria, a perfect standard oE what pronunciation should be. People were always coming to him to-ask him how to speak on tho stage, and thero was nowhere to send ■ tliein to learn. Thero- were three kinds of English—Queen Victoria's English, curates' English, which was largely Oxford English, anil a motor-car, weekend, sort of English. This last had been ve:y much thrust upon tho stage as the correct- kind. Mr. Shaw suggested as a perfect model of pronunciation Mr. Forbes Robertson's ,ln the part of Hamlet, and ho thought this might bo easily set up as a standard. His 'suggestion appeared io bo •that "Hamlot"~Should be printed phonetically, as Mr.'Forbes Robertson pronounces tho words. "On the stago at present," he added, "110 one knows •how. to speak; the.only people who aro experts in speaking are those who havo been trained in singing, like Coquelin." Tlio reason why more progress had not been inido was this quarrelling of ono man's sjstc-in with another's man's., Mr. Shaw's speech was diversified by amusing "spars" with Professor Rinpmann who was rather sovercly handled for his criticism of Mr. Robert Bridge's system, and for his theory about the pronunpiatio.iv of "anxious." Professor ilippmann protested against Mr. Shaw,s remarks, and a little later Professor Skeat- intervened to correct Mr. Shaw in what ho was saying about tho way to pronounce "Punjiub." Mr. Shaw had expressed annoyance becanso children are now being taught to pronounce it "Panjab." Mr. Robert Bridges also spoke, ami urged the. teaching of phonetic spelling in the elementary schools.