[Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society, 1988/2, p17-19 later designated
J8]
[Chris Jolly: see
Book,
Journals,
Newsletters,
Media,
Bulletins,
Web links.]
The Marketability of Spelling Reform.
C J H Jolly.
Chris Jolly has been Chairman of the Simplified Spelling
Society since 1982 and has extensive professional experience in marketing. He has
started a company developing learning products which is publishing and marketing
innovatory reading materials. The following paper was presented at the Society's
Fifth International Conference in July 1987.
The Survey.
For spelling reform to take place it must be what people want. If not, it will
simply be rejected. To find out what people want we must ask them, and this paper
reports on some research that was carried out with that in mind. It set out to find
if spelling reform could appeal to a majority of the population, and if so on what
basis.
The survey took the form of street interviews using a questionnaire. (The
questionnaire, showing the exact wording used, is given at the end of this article.)
It represents only the views of 50 people in one London suburb (Loughton) on a day
in July 1987. With such a small sample, the results should be taken only as a useful
guide rather than any kind of definitive assessment.
However the results were both encouraging and had some surprises. Important among
the findings was that:
- Most people expected spelling reforms to take place - even those who did not
support the idea themselves.
- The main fear of spelling reform was that it would produce enormous confusion.
Respondents thought there would be chaos if different systems were in use at the
same time, or if, say, adults and children spelt differently.
- People recognised that English spellings were 'a mess' and yet had never really
thought about reform.
The Respondents.
Among the 50 people interviewed a high proportion was younger, female and in
clerical/administrative work, all of which may have biased the results against
spelling reform.
| The Respondents |
| (figures in %) |
| | Sex |
Men | 32 |
Women | 68 |
| |
| | Age |
16-25
36-45
56-65 | 24
20
10
|
26-35
46-55
66+
|
20
22
4 |
| |
| | Class |
AB
C1
C2
DE |
26
34
30
10 |
Management/Professional
Clerical/Administrative
Skilled Manual
Semi-skilled/Unskilled |
|
The Results.
Most people considered themselves average spellers, but with more women than men
claiming to be good spellers:
| Self-assessment of spelling
proficiency |
| (figures in %) |
| |
Good spellers
Average spellers
Poor spellers |
Total
22
60
18 |
Men
6
75
19 |
Women
29
53
18 |
|
However most people thought it was very important to spell correctly. If anything,
such views were held more strongly by women and those over 45:
| Importance
attached to correct spelling |
| (figures in %) |
| |
Very important
Quite important
Not important |
Total
60
36
4 |
Men
56
38
6 |
Women
62
35
3 |
16-45
56
38
6 |
46+
67
33
- |
|
Both good spellers and average spellers saw correct spelling as important in the
same proportion. Only poor spellers were inclined to see it as not important.
Most people (68%) had seen spellings that were deliberately different. The most
common were advertising and product names (32%) and American spellings (30%).
Surprisingly perhaps, most people did not think that spelling should never be
changed:
| Should
spelling ever be changed? |
| (figures in %) |
| |
Should never be changed
Could be changed in certain circumstances |
Total
40
60 |
Men
31
69 |
Women
47
53 |
|
Men were more prepared to see change than women. Those who were good spellers were
just as ready to see change as those who were average or poor spellers. Similarly,
those who thought correct spelling was very important were just as ready to see
change as those who thought correct spelling was only quite important or not
important.
Surprisingly it was the younger people who were the most resistant to change.
Similarly it was the higher socio-economic classes, particularly as we shall see
later the clerical and administrative Cl class, that did not wish to have spelling
changed:
| Should
spelling ever be changed? |
| (figures in %) |
| |
By age
Should never be changed
Could be changed in certain circumstances |
Total
40
60 |
16-25
58
42 |
26-35
40
60 |
36-45
38
62 |
56+
14
86 |
| |
| | By class
Should never be
changed
Could be changed in certain circumstances |
Total
40
60 |
AB
46
54 |
C1
47
53 |
C2
33
67 |
DE
20
80 |
|
When asked
why they did not want to see change, there was no simple answer.
Indeed a questionnaire of this sort is not the best way of exploring this point.
However there was an overriding fear of
confusion, a belief that different
schemes would cause chaos, nobody would know where they were and everything would
get very complicated. Above all, while they would be prepared to change their
spelling to help children and immigrants it would have to be a change they were part
of. They did not wish to have different spellings for different people.
Respondents were prepared to see spellings that were deliberately different, more so
in personal letters or notes than in, say, reading schemes for children:
| Deliberately
different spellings acceptable |
| (figures in %) |
| |
In advertisements
In a letter from a friend
In notes a friend makes for himself |
52
52
70 |
| |
| | In special reading schemes for children
In an ordinary novel
|
38
18 |
|
One of the objections to different spelling in advertisements was that it would
encourage children to spelling incorrectly. The figures suggest that spelling
reform might be most readily accepted for use in personal notes.
Asked whether it would be a good idea to reform
illogical spellings, only
half the people thought so:
| Changing
illogical spellings desirable |
| (figures in %) |
| |
By sex & age
Yes
No |
Total
52
48 |
Men
56
44 |
Women
50
50 |
16-25
42
58 |
26-35
60
40 |
36-45
48
52 |
56+
72
28 |
| | By class
Yes
No
|
Total
52
48 |
AB
54
46 |
C1
24
76 |
C2
73
27 |
DE
80
20 |
|
Again it is the younger, and particularly the clerical C1 class, that is not in
favour of change.
However respondents' view of people who set out to reform English spelling was
mostly favourable when asked whether they were:
| Spelling reformers |
| (figures in %) |
| |
Misguided
On the right lines |
42
58 |
|
It was put to respondents that decimalisation had come and that metrication was well
under way. Against this background most thought there would be some change in
spelling in their lifetime, though not very much:
| Spelling reform in our lifetime?
|
| |
(figures in %)
Not at all
Possibly a few words
Some significant changes
A wholesale reform |
Total
18
64
18
- |
Men
31
50
19
- |
Women
12
70
18
- |
|
Women were more prepared to believe that there will be some change than men (despite
the fact they would welcome it less).
Those who were good spellers, and those who believed correct spelling to be very
important, thought that spelling reform was only likely to stretch to 'possibly a
few words'. It was the average/poor spellers, and those who saw correct spelling as
quite important/not important, who thought that spelling reform was likely to
include 'some significant changes'. In other words it was those who were less happy
with spelling who expected greatest change:
| Spelling
reform in our lifetime? |
| (figures in %) |
| |
By spelling proficiency
Not at all
Possibly a few words
Some significant changes
A wholesale reform
By importance attached to correct spelling
Not at all
Possibly a few words
Some significant changes
A wholesale reform |
Total
18
64
18
-
Total
18
64
18
- |
Good
18
73
9
-
V.important
20
70
10
- |
Average/poor
18
62
20
-
Quite/not important
15
55
30
- |
|
Some of the potential benefits of spelling reform were welcomed much more than
others. We have already seen than reforming illogical spelling was thought to be a
good idea by 52%.
| Conditions
for welcoming spelling reform |
| (figures in %) |
| | If words needed fewer letters
If words were spelt more like they sound
If some of the confusing
spellings were made less confusing |
32
64
74 |
|
So a system based simply on reducing the number of letters (an abbreviation system)
would not have the same support as one based on more phonetic spelling. Note again
that the avoidance of confusion appears the strongest motivator.
However it should be noted that these replies were from street interviews with
people who did not have much time to think it through, and no examples to work with.
The results should be considered only as an outline guide and one that could help in
future research.
With these reservations in mind, consider the figures more closely. The welcome for
spelling reform is maintained, at much the same level, even among those who had
least support for spelling reform:
| Conditions
for welcoming spelling reform |
| By various indicators (figures in %) |
If words needed fewer letters
If words were spelt more like they sound
If confusing spellings less confusing |
Total
32
64
74
|
Women
26
59
74
|
Age
16-25
33
58
83 |
Class
C1
6
47
59
|
Good
spellers
9
55
73 |
Correctness
v.important
43
67
77 |
|
It is in the clerical, C1 class
that there are fewest people who would welcome spelling reform. However even in
this group a majority would welcome reforms that would make confusing spellings
less confusing.
Earlier in the questionnaire, many respondents thought spelling 'should never be
changed'. Even so, a surprising number of them would welcome some of the possible
benefits of spelling reform when it was put to them later on:
| Welcoming but not expecting spelling
reform |
| Of those who thought spelling would
never be changed, |
| | reform would be:
If words needed fewer letters
If words were spelt more like they sound
If
some of the confusing spellings
were made less confusing |
welcomed by
30
55
44 |
not welcomed by
70
45
45 |
|
Conclusion.
Some of the results of spelling
reform would attract a wide level of support, others less so. These preferences
have only been broadly indicated in this research but should be taken into
account in the development and promotion of spelling reform schemes.
| QUESTIONNAIRE |
|
| Could I ask you some questions about spelling? |
| Q.1 | Do you consider yourself a |
|
| | | Good speller |
A |
| | | Average speller | B |
| | | Poor speller | C |
| Q.2 | How important do you think it is to spell correctly?
| |
| | | Very important | D |
| | | Quite important | E |
| | | Not important | F |
| Q.3 | Forgetting for a moment the mistakes
that children or the newspapers make,
have you ever seen words deliberately
spelt in a different way? | |
| | | Yes | Y |
| | | No | N |
| | If Yes, where? | |
| | | In advertisements | G |
| | | In product names | H |
| | | In books teaching children to read |
I |
| | | Used to help show the pronunciation |
J |
| Q.4 | In general, and do you think that spellings: |
|
| | | Should never be changed | K |
| | |
Could be changed in certain circumstances | L |
| Q.5 | If never, why? | |
| | | Like it as it is | M |
| | | Spoils the language | N |
| | |
Taken so long to learn no wish to change | O |
| | | Other | P |
| Q.6 | Would you be prepared to see spellings that are
deliberately different: | |
| | | In advertisements | Q |
| | | In a letter from a friend |
R |
| | | In the notes a friend makes for himself |
S |
| | |
In special reading schemes for children | T |
| | | In an ordinary novel | U |
| Q.7 |
Do you think it is a good idea to reform
some of the more illogical
English spellings? | |
| | | Yes | Y |
| | | No | N |
| Q.8 | What is your view of people who set out to reform
English spelling? Are they: | |
| | | Misguided | A |
| | | On the right lines | B |
| Q.9 |
Now that decimalization has come, and metrication is
well under way,
how much do you think spelling will be reformed in your lifetime?
| |
| | | Not at all | C |
| | | Possibly a few words | D |
| | | Some significant changes | E |
| | | A wholesale reform | F |
| Q.10 | Would you welcome spelling reform if, as
a result, | |
| | | Words would be written with fewer letters
| Y/N |
| | | Words were spelt more like they sound |
Y/N |
| | | Some of the confusing spellings were made
less confusing | Y/N |
|
Back to the top.
