Des Ryan
Principles English Spelling Formation
PhD, Trinity College Dublin 2011-18
Irish Research Council funded.
Supervisors: Breffni O'Rourke (full-time) and Heinz Giegerich (visiting)
Address: Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
PhD, Trinity College Dublin 2011-18
Irish Research Council funded.
Supervisors: Breffni O'Rourke (full-time) and Heinz Giegerich (visiting)
Address: Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (18)
Uploads
Papers by Des Ryan
This thesis examines how English spellings are formed, particularly where compromises are made in the representation of both morphological and phonological information. The primary focus is on the spelling of inflections, but also derivations, names and non-standard spellings. The study also examines how we know if a spelling is a good phonographic match for a word. Five principles of spelling formation are proposed.
1. Any-Spelling principle: All words must have some spelling.
2. Distinctiveness principle (DSTNCT): Different words should have different spellings.
3. Identity Preservation principle (IdP): Related words should have related spellings. Hence complex words take their spelling from the spellings of their subcomponents.
4. Phonographic Matching principle (PhM): A word's spelling should represent its phonological form.
5. Invariance principle (INVRNC): Established spellings cannot be changed.
The principles are manifested differently according to the category of word being spelt. Compound words adhere strongly to IdP. Regular inflections follow IdP by default, <jump, jumped, jumping>, but may involve PhM amendments, hence <dope, doped, doping> not <dope, *dopeed, *dopeing>. Affixed derivatives show similar patterns, <mode, modal>, regardless of stress-shifting, <origin, original>, while etymological influences complicate the picture, <possible, probable>. DSTNCT sometimes differentiates lexical homophones. <flour>, <flower>, but it is common among certain names, <Webb>, <Blu Tac>, <OutKast>. Non-standard spellings violate INVRNC by definition, and the conditions for spelling variation arise in part due to phonological changes. Abbreviations frequently obey IdP, e.g. <a.k.a.>, but clippings may not, <telly>, <fridge>. Etymological spelling is deemed to be an example of IdP, either among unchanged base forms, <macchiato>, or adapted polymorphemic words, <philosophy>. This re-assessment helps to solve the long-standing problem of how to integrate etymological spelling into synchronic theories of spelling. A flexible unit of spelling, the complex pleremic unit, is identified and it accounts for IdP's various manifestations. Native, monomorphemic base forms are not examined in detail as the priority is how new and complex words are spelt. This method is taken from word-formation studies (Marchand 1969, Bauer 1983, Plag 2003).
The initial model of spelling formation assumes that polymorphemic words obey IdP by default, but that PhM amendments can be made, where necessary, if possible. The second iteration builds on Evertz's (2014) graphematic hierarchy to show how unsatisfactory spellings can be identified by comparing spelling and phonology at all hierarchical levels, including phonemes, syllables, and feet. The third iteration shows how Optimality Theory can be used to explain how one imperfect spelling, e.g. <doped>, can be chosen over an even less perfect spelling, *<dopeed>. Two further applications arise from the model: the pronunciation of many polysyllabic words can be predicted from the spelling with greater accuracy; and a path is provided by which spelling pronunciation can be predicted from potential ambiguities in decoding.
It is argued here that the graphic forms can add significantly to the overall meaning of a written text. Based on evidence taken from, inter alia, Google Doodles celebrating New Years’ Day between 2001 and 2011, writing’s formal dimensions of signification are considered to be shape, size, position and colour. Single letterforms (glyphs) can double up as pictures or be interpreted multiply, hence multidimensional writing. For example, the 2011 Doodle replaces 'oogl' with the year MMXI, yet the shape and position of the customised glyphs helps us to reconstruct the logo. These innovations raise several issues about the nature of writing and exactly what theorists of writing systems need to concern themselves with.
allowing for the interchanging of phonograms, morphograms and syllabograms.
Books by Des Ryan
Talks by Des Ryan
Drafts by Des Ryan
argue that there are five basic principles of English spelling and that different kinds of words may be spelt in different ways, subject to different applications of these principles, which state:
1. Identity Preservation (IdP)
A spelling takes its form from the spellings of its subcomponents. Hence related words have related spellings.
2. Phonographic Matching (PhM)
The spelling must match the known phonological form and changes may be made, where necessary, if possible, by amending the spelling-to-sound correspondences
3. Distinctiveness (DSTNCT)
Words with different meanings should have different spellings, if possible.
4. Invariant spelling
Once a spelling has been settled upon, it is not changed.
5. Any spelling
All words must have some spelling.
It has long been known that polymorphemic words tend to keep the spelling of their constituent morphemes ‘as much as possible’ (Venezky 1970: 120), and I examine how much this is possible, by looking at how amendments are made, firstly in inflected forms, and then in affixed derivation, where the complicating factor of etymology often plays a part. It is argued here that morphemic spelling is fundamentally the same as etymological spelling, as both are different manifestations of IdP, one connecting the meaning of related English words, in spite of differences (electric, electricity, electrician) the other connecting English to other languages (e.g. psychology, courgette). English spellings are thus formed from ‘lengthwise’ units of spelling, which may be reduced but never broken (psychotherapist, psychedelic, psy trance).
English spelling formation is modelled visually by constructing orthographic trees and comparing orthographic structure against phonological structure. Where conflicts arise in the application of IdP, draft spellings can amended where appropriate, hence <sin>+<ing> <sinning> not *<sining>. A simple notation is introduced to show the main details, and this may be applicable in the classroom. The model also provides a viable path for the under-explained phenomenon of spelling pronunciation. It is also shown that new and creative spellings may be subject to users’ awareness of higher-level structures in the formation of spellings, and this explains why ‘constructed homophones’ are possible, where distinctive spellings are formed by altering units of spelling, at any phonological level, hence the band names OutKast, Altern-8, Xzibit, INXS, etc. These spellings require readers to reconstruct a known phonological form, from a new spelling. This logic can be extended to all spelling, and the argument here is that readers must map from spelling to sound at several phonological levels (phonemes, rhymes, syllables, feet), an extension of Venezky’s (1970) model. Another central argument of the thesis is that new spelling units arise due to changes in phonology that are not matched by changes in spelling. Hence old spelling units can be redeployed for new purposes in new spellings. The English writing system is thus characterised as being in permanent flux, as it accumulates new spellings over the centuries.
This thesis examines how English spellings are formed, particularly where compromises are made in the representation of both morphological and phonological information. The primary focus is on the spelling of inflections, but also derivations, names and non-standard spellings. The study also examines how we know if a spelling is a good phonographic match for a word. Five principles of spelling formation are proposed.
1. Any-Spelling principle: All words must have some spelling.
2. Distinctiveness principle (DSTNCT): Different words should have different spellings.
3. Identity Preservation principle (IdP): Related words should have related spellings. Hence complex words take their spelling from the spellings of their subcomponents.
4. Phonographic Matching principle (PhM): A word's spelling should represent its phonological form.
5. Invariance principle (INVRNC): Established spellings cannot be changed.
The principles are manifested differently according to the category of word being spelt. Compound words adhere strongly to IdP. Regular inflections follow IdP by default, <jump, jumped, jumping>, but may involve PhM amendments, hence <dope, doped, doping> not <dope, *dopeed, *dopeing>. Affixed derivatives show similar patterns, <mode, modal>, regardless of stress-shifting, <origin, original>, while etymological influences complicate the picture, <possible, probable>. DSTNCT sometimes differentiates lexical homophones. <flour>, <flower>, but it is common among certain names, <Webb>, <Blu Tac>, <OutKast>. Non-standard spellings violate INVRNC by definition, and the conditions for spelling variation arise in part due to phonological changes. Abbreviations frequently obey IdP, e.g. <a.k.a.>, but clippings may not, <telly>, <fridge>. Etymological spelling is deemed to be an example of IdP, either among unchanged base forms, <macchiato>, or adapted polymorphemic words, <philosophy>. This re-assessment helps to solve the long-standing problem of how to integrate etymological spelling into synchronic theories of spelling. A flexible unit of spelling, the complex pleremic unit, is identified and it accounts for IdP's various manifestations. Native, monomorphemic base forms are not examined in detail as the priority is how new and complex words are spelt. This method is taken from word-formation studies (Marchand 1969, Bauer 1983, Plag 2003).
The initial model of spelling formation assumes that polymorphemic words obey IdP by default, but that PhM amendments can be made, where necessary, if possible. The second iteration builds on Evertz's (2014) graphematic hierarchy to show how unsatisfactory spellings can be identified by comparing spelling and phonology at all hierarchical levels, including phonemes, syllables, and feet. The third iteration shows how Optimality Theory can be used to explain how one imperfect spelling, e.g. <doped>, can be chosen over an even less perfect spelling, *<dopeed>. Two further applications arise from the model: the pronunciation of many polysyllabic words can be predicted from the spelling with greater accuracy; and a path is provided by which spelling pronunciation can be predicted from potential ambiguities in decoding.
It is argued here that the graphic forms can add significantly to the overall meaning of a written text. Based on evidence taken from, inter alia, Google Doodles celebrating New Years’ Day between 2001 and 2011, writing’s formal dimensions of signification are considered to be shape, size, position and colour. Single letterforms (glyphs) can double up as pictures or be interpreted multiply, hence multidimensional writing. For example, the 2011 Doodle replaces 'oogl' with the year MMXI, yet the shape and position of the customised glyphs helps us to reconstruct the logo. These innovations raise several issues about the nature of writing and exactly what theorists of writing systems need to concern themselves with.
allowing for the interchanging of phonograms, morphograms and syllabograms.
argue that there are five basic principles of English spelling and that different kinds of words may be spelt in different ways, subject to different applications of these principles, which state:
1. Identity Preservation (IdP)
A spelling takes its form from the spellings of its subcomponents. Hence related words have related spellings.
2. Phonographic Matching (PhM)
The spelling must match the known phonological form and changes may be made, where necessary, if possible, by amending the spelling-to-sound correspondences
3. Distinctiveness (DSTNCT)
Words with different meanings should have different spellings, if possible.
4. Invariant spelling
Once a spelling has been settled upon, it is not changed.
5. Any spelling
All words must have some spelling.
It has long been known that polymorphemic words tend to keep the spelling of their constituent morphemes ‘as much as possible’ (Venezky 1970: 120), and I examine how much this is possible, by looking at how amendments are made, firstly in inflected forms, and then in affixed derivation, where the complicating factor of etymology often plays a part. It is argued here that morphemic spelling is fundamentally the same as etymological spelling, as both are different manifestations of IdP, one connecting the meaning of related English words, in spite of differences (electric, electricity, electrician) the other connecting English to other languages (e.g. psychology, courgette). English spellings are thus formed from ‘lengthwise’ units of spelling, which may be reduced but never broken (psychotherapist, psychedelic, psy trance).
English spelling formation is modelled visually by constructing orthographic trees and comparing orthographic structure against phonological structure. Where conflicts arise in the application of IdP, draft spellings can amended where appropriate, hence <sin>+<ing> <sinning> not *<sining>. A simple notation is introduced to show the main details, and this may be applicable in the classroom. The model also provides a viable path for the under-explained phenomenon of spelling pronunciation. It is also shown that new and creative spellings may be subject to users’ awareness of higher-level structures in the formation of spellings, and this explains why ‘constructed homophones’ are possible, where distinctive spellings are formed by altering units of spelling, at any phonological level, hence the band names OutKast, Altern-8, Xzibit, INXS, etc. These spellings require readers to reconstruct a known phonological form, from a new spelling. This logic can be extended to all spelling, and the argument here is that readers must map from spelling to sound at several phonological levels (phonemes, rhymes, syllables, feet), an extension of Venezky’s (1970) model. Another central argument of the thesis is that new spelling units arise due to changes in phonology that are not matched by changes in spelling. Hence old spelling units can be redeployed for new purposes in new spellings. The English writing system is thus characterised as being in permanent flux, as it accumulates new spellings over the centuries.