English
is only 40% phonemic (i.e., only 40%
alphabetic and consistent). This is an affront to logic and makes
learning unnecessarily difficult and frustrating.
The consistency of English
spelling can be easily improved. There
are three popular approaches to the problem of the restoring the alphabet.
We say restore because Old English was 90% alphabetic.
-
Eliminate redundant letters
-
almost every letter is redundant and silent in some
word
-
Eliminate code overlaps
- no letter or digraph should have more than one pronunciation.
-
Eliminate all inconsistencies
- 1-to-1 correspondence between graphemes & phonemes.
The initial teaching alphabet
(ITA) eliminated redundant letters and most code overlaps.
ITA was a medium not a method and although it worked with any approach
to the teaching of reading and writing, it would have worked better (and
been easier to study) if it had been associated with a method. ITA
was 200 times easier than the traditional orthography but when used with
a mix of teaching methods it proved to be only 25% better over a four year
period. The transition to TO was never specifically taught until
the end of the ITA era (early 1970's). Some who were taught using
ITA blame the medium on their continuing problems in matching dictionary
spellings. Such claims have never been proved. What was proved
was that young children could learn to express themselves in ITA four times
as fast as a control group could in TO.
Educational fads, particularly
those that add cost and administrative inconvenience, are usually short
lived. Such was the case with ITA. No major publisher currently
supports this approach to the teaching of reading, writing, and spelling.
POETAETOE
(ITA spelling) (NS - new spelling)
ITA was based on New Spelling
(Ellis, 1932), a notational scheme that always represented
"long" vowels as ae, ee, ie, oe, ue.
"Ie sae nue boi goe tel mee whaat yue see." This is consistent
and readable but doesn't look much like TO.
POATAYTO
(RES spelling)
The newest scheme called restored
spelling (RES)
is more complicated than ITA but closer to TO. In fact it is more
traditional (pre 1100) than traditional orthography which dates from 1755.
The difference is that RES spells current pronunciation the way
it would have been spelled in Old English. TO contains many silent
letters because the spelling reflects an earlier pronunciation. TO
often spells an ancient pronunciation: some words are spelled the same
as they were in 1100 but we no longer pronounce them that way. [e.g., knight/nyt,
enough/enuf]
"TIME" used to be pronounced
tim-uh. "GIVE" used to be pronounced giv-uh (Cf: given).
In RES, these words would be spelled TYM and GIV. In ITA, TIEM and GIV.
The "long" or free vowels
in RES would be represented as ai, ee, y, oa,
ue in situations where they need to be distinguished from checked
vowels, i.e., when followed by a consonant. Otherwise they would
be represented as ay, e, I/y, o, u
as in say, me, I/my, silo, guru. Hence:
"I say nu boy go tel me wot u se." RES looks mor lyk English becaus
it employs positiona'l speling, just lyk TO.
RES is not phonemic since
there is more than one way to spell a sound. It is systematic and
predictable: There is only one way to spell a sound in a particular
position in a word. The absence of confusing code overlaps make it
a viable candidate for a new ITM (initial teaching medium) in the schools.
It is a great place to start learning to read and write. No new rules
are needed to transition to TO since RES identifies all of the consistent
rules in traditional English spelling. The transition is one of adding
exceptions to the rules. (see heterographs).
Teachers interested in using
RES as a new initial teaching medium in the classroom or for a research
study may contact Dr. Steve Bett for details.
A dictionary for RES has
yet to be completed but there is one for several variants of new spelling
(NS, ALC
Fonetik). An automated
converter is available to convert any passage to ALC Fonetik. |