Also the fault in the spelling system is that the whole principle of an alphabet is to provide a letter to represent a distinct sound. However the English alphabet has 44 sounds and only 26 letters.
Foreign influence can confuse one learning the English language. Sixty percent of the English language is words that are foreign. A foreign learner learning English as a fluent language would get confused, as they will detect foreign words being applied in dialect.
The simplicity of integrating foreign language into our system can cause disruption for someone learning the English language. The reason why these words are included in our language is due to languages that have been spoken in Great Britain being lost and simply just the likeability of a phrase or word. An extensive amount of the English Language is derived from Latin and German.
The use of homonyms in the English language spelling system makes it intricate for one to understand the meaning of the word, and they will only understand the word if the context is stated. For example the words witch and which are pronounced the same but have a different spelling.
If the system was to be altered there are many possible approaches to make the spelling system viable and ameliorated.
Firstly In order to improve the phonetic content of the English language spelling system a phonetic alphabet would be devised. The new alphabet would enable people to spell phonetically and would change the appearance of words immensely making it exceptionally easier for a young child to learn the language productively.
Some people in the past have attempted to reform the system, however they weren’t successful. Examples include Harry Lindgren who thought of the idea to amend the vowel sound. In 1969 he stated that the vowel sound in ‘bed’ is always spelt just <e>, giving ‘meny’, ‘frend’, ‘lepard’, ‘hefer’, ‘gess’, ‘hemorrhage’, ‘hed’, ‘thret’ and ‘mesure’ for example. This reform would only cause minor changes on a piece of text.
The ‘cut spelling act’ in 1992 explained that misleading letters were cut out and shortening text by up to 10%. For example the new method would be written like this: ‘cut spelling leves out most silent letrs.
Another reformation attempt was in 1948. It aimed at total regularity but changes the look of language more radically, as here: ‘In nue speling wurdz which sound aliek wood noe longger be distinggwishabl.’
If we were to change the English spelling system several positive and negative factors would transpire. Initially the positive impacts would be that young learners of the language (3-6 years old) would benefit, as they will have a more systematic system by using phonetics to spell and following the phonetic alphabet. Also in order to make an impact on toddlers learning the language the best way is to introduce the new system as early into their academic start. Furthermore the English language will become easier to learn for foreign students by the removal of silent letters and homonyms. Therefore resulting in a development of the language across the world.
However there are some negative points for the change. The change can be extremely beneficial for toddlers and young children but the impact on the 10+ mass of the population would be confusing and would take years for one to fully understand the new system. The new system would cost large amounts of money to publicise the system and the re-teaching of teaching staff.
Additionally the English language is a very old language and by altering large segments of words and even removing words would result in a culture loss.
The English spelling system is certainly irregular; too many sounds and not enough letters in the alphabet, words that are said the same but have a completely different meaning and silent letters. These abnormal points make the spelling system obscure. The influences of foreign languages have really changed English and have changed the sound of dialect making it sound bizarre. The English language is only 40% British and the rest (60%) are words and phrases from other languages.
The phonetic content of our language is misleading. Various letter combinations that which doesn’t always have the same pronunciation in a word. Also silent letters in words are puzzling. Do they really need to be there?
The poor spelling of words put excessive pressure on children learning the language as they cant spell a word how they say it.
The homonymic content is severely affecting literate skills. We should just have one word spelt the same put into the context. For example: ‘I red a book’ and ‘I like the colour red.’
In conclusion I believe that the disruption of the original system would consequently cause great deliberation. I understand the low literacy levels in Great Britain but I think that this will increase literacy levels among the older generation and result in confusion. The argument for changing the system is strong in some ways but not in others. Changing the system would dramatically improve children’s skill of reading and writing and make words easier to write and say. But there is the already educated people who will most certainly disagree to the change as they have completed their education and will not want to ‘be at school’ again. Also there will be an economical impact for the worse, as money will be given out to re-train teaching staff and the production of new reading and writing aids.
The English culture may be diminished, the rapid change of words and letters (if phonetic symbols were introduced).
Ultimately the change, in my point of view, is an enormous risk to take and will create confusion among the population. As you can see the negative points out-weigh the positive ones in this piece and therefore I believe that the change is definitely the wrong choice to make. I think the alternative would be to teach only the subject English until the age of four or five.
Consequently the argument for changing the English spelling system is unquestionably not cogent.
