LL-L "Orthography" 2006.01.11 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

   L O W L A N D S - L * 11 January 2006 * Volume 03
=======================================================================

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2006.01.09 (03) [E]

About English spelling supposedly easier and faster to understand the way
it is now: I don't see how that can be tested objectively , because
everyone has learned and is used to the present orthography, so that looks
familiar, is recognizable etc. and nobody is used to a reformed spelling.
If a reformed spelling would be taught to one class of children who can't
read yet, and the present spelling to a similar class next to it, I can
imagen that the results would be completely different after a few years.
It is well known that learning to write English more or less correctly
takes twice or three times (years) longer than is the case with many other
languages, that have a more regular orthography.

Not that I am completely pro an English spelling reform, because for
speakers of say Dutch, Low Saxon or Danish, the connection with our own
Germanic language is probably more obvious now.

Ingmar

Btw I am curious to see some examples of reformed English spellings, is
there anyone here in favour for it who can actually use one?

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Orthography

Folks,

Once again I feel inclined to agree with my buddy Ingmar, certainly with his 
point that familiarity overrides pretty much everything and that anything 
new will at first be considered inferior by most people, also that an 
inconsistent system requires lifelong learning, time that could be spent 
more profitably in other ways.  I do not buy the etymology preservation 
argument.  Why should you have more etymological hints in writing than in 
speaking and listening?  Just for a small minority of glossophiliacs like 
us?

However, trying to keep an open mind, I've been seriously thinking about the 
word recognition thing our Sandy has mentioned on several occasions.  Based 
on my own limited experience, it seems to me that there may be something to 
the hypothesis that there are more ways of reading than one ... but at third 
thought I may backtrack on that ...  (Talkin' about "sitting on the fence" 
...)

It is definitely true that I practice pure icon recognition when I read 
Chinese (characters).  Or rather, I am truly aware of pure icon recognition 
when I read Chinese.  I see all (or most) characters as distinct icons 
without analyzing their components. I analyze components only of hitherto 
unknown or poorly known characters (especially when having to look them up 
in dictionaries, for which you use "tricky" component look-up methods). 
When I read Japanese (which has a mixed script, consisting of Chinese 
characters and native "phonetic" syllable writing) I tend to first scan for 
Chinese characters to get the general gist of the subject matter, especially 
when I want to skim through text.  I don't know if Japanese people do this 
(but I do know that Chinese speakers do it).  In my case it may be because I 
learned Chinese first, am a non-native reader of Japanese and am inclined to 
go for the "pictures" first, find the sound representations less convenient. 
What this means is that I find "pure icon recognition" more convenient.

By the same token -- and this is where the backtracking happens -- my theory 
is that *any* word reading is in fact a type of icon recognition that does 
not focus on the components (e.g., letters, radicals, strokes, etc.) of a 
given word but on the overall shape or image of the word itself.  My 
preferring to first read the Chinese characters in Japanese texts probably 
means that I am simply better or faster at reading them than the native 
_kana_ syllabaries (and it doesn't help that there are no spaces between 
words).

So, to sum up, we tend to recognize words by "shape," no matter what the 
writing system or spelling method is.  We recognize them because we *know* 
them, don't need to analyze them everytime we see them.  Analyzing only 
happens in cases of words with which we are not or only poorly familiar. 
This happens more often the less familiar we are with a given language 
variety or the less familiar we are with a specific spelling method of a 
given language variety.  I venture to propose that this is why spelling 
reforms are perceived as a big bother and tend to be greeted with 
disapproval by those that have acquired familiarity with a given system (no 
matter how convenient or inconvenient it was in the beginning).

To make my argument more abstract, let me (re-)state that a need for 
familiarity overrides most other concerns, that changing a spelling system 
(for better or for worse) requires folks to start at the bottom again, and 
they just don't want to face that, especially where learing an inconsistent, 
unpredictable system is remembered as having been a big pain in the arm.

In my view, then, the reading part is less important than the writing part, 
at least in the case of native or near-native readers and writers.  What is 
important in reading is only how easily recognizable or analyzable a word is 
that one has previously not encountered (in writing).  In the case of 
"non-phonemic" or "inconsistently phonemic" writing systems we may find 
clues that allow educated guesses, or else we have to look things up in 
dictionaries to learn pronunciation and meanings.  In "consistently 
phonemic" spelling the reader -- also the learner, including the foreign 
learner -- will be able to pronounce any previously unknown word.  In 
writing, anyone, including the foreign learner, can spell any word at first 
hearing.  In other words, speaking, hearing and writing are as closely 
linked as they can be for practical, everyday purposes.  At the same time, 
once everyone is familiar with a given orthography, "icon recognition" will 
still apply in reading familiar words.

So it all boils down to change being the sticking point.  Human and other 
beings are wired to perceive any change, any lack of familiarity as risky 
and thus as threatening and stressful.  I venture to propose that this is 
most clearly and forcefully manifested in reactions to spelling reforms, 
real or proposed.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron 

==============================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
======================================================================