On orthographic diversity

Joshua Loo

Supplement №2, Volume II

Joshua Loo

]

The Librarian is home to what is certainly unconventional orthography. The use of the diæresis, acute accent, ligatures and ‘-xion’ spellings is often commented upon by readers; many complain that, variously, this is an affectation, it is incorrect, it does not reflect modern usage, and so on.

Any discussion on orthography must recognise that orthography has a relatively limited effect. It does not change the content of what is said; to the extent that one as a reader changes one’s mind, this is a choice. There are, however, several reasons why the orthographic unorthodoxy of this publication could potentially be beneficial. They do not seem particularly convincing, because orthography is so unimportant; however, given that most of the criticisms of the use of, for example, the diæresis are that it is ‘an affectation’, or ‘antiquated’, they nevertheless are important in relative terms. Five seem particularly pertinent.

The assumption here is that conservative orthography does not inhibit comprehension; were this to occur, that as a harm would outweigh the benefits claimed. It is relatively clear, however, that the diæresis, or acute accent, or ligature, does not impede comprehension. Though it may induce curiosity, there is, at worst, an initial fixed cost. It is relatively trivial for a reader to use the internet to find that ‘coördinate’ has a diæresis to indicate that ‘oo’ has two separate syllables, and so on. Where this is too frequent, there is of course a non-negligible cost.

The trade-off might be slightly different in other languages. For example, there is a strong tradition of prescription in French, from the Académie, and there is a tradition of centralisation, if not prescription, in Spanish. This article will not attempt to determine where the balance of advantage lies in languages with strong central authorities; of course, in English, such authority is distributed amongst publications, dictionaries, style guides, &c.

First, the use of older orthography in particular ensures that readers are familiarised with their use, so that when they read older texts, they are not surprised.

Second, some unconventional orthography is helpful. The diæresis, for example, helps those who are not native speakers of English to understand when words are disyllabic. Of course, this demand must be balanced against the need to avoid confusing native speakers too much. Though the placing of a diæresis on, for example, ‘react’, would be logic, as the ‘ea’ sound is often monosyllabic, because the spelling ‘reäct’ is so uncommon as to not appear in dictionaries or corpora, it is not used.

Third, the presence of diverse orthographies in general, that is, local prescription, helps to decrease the prevalence of global prescription. The promotion of local prescription necessarily promotes an understanding and acceptance that, at the very least, there exist multiple acceptable orthographies. By contrast, global prescription either promotes the tyranny of the majority or of a specific privileged minority. Competition between orthographies is far superior to such tyranny.

Indeed, the understanding that such tyranny is often problematic is common even amongst those who most describe themselves as ‘descriptivist’, for they are the most likely to promote, for example, gender-neutral language. Gender-neutral language is, and certainly was, out of step both with the language of the establishment and the masses. With local prescription comes acceptance of difference, and so the possibility of change. Equally, of course, it means that one must accept certain remnants from an age gone by—perhaps, even after gender-neutral language becomes the norm, some will insist on the use of the generic ‘he’. Yet this will become fringe usage, and so harm very few; the alternative is a stagnation, where proposed linguistic changes either succeed rapidly or fail. Most of the time, they will fail. Far better is an acceptance of competition between linguistic conventions.

Readers who accept, for example, that some prefer the diæresis, or that some would prefer not to use one on ‘daïs’, and so on, are far less likely to promote linguistic standards which, for all the improvements thus far, still are problematic, hence the improvement.

Fourth, orthographic diversity acts as a filter. Some potential readers will be too close-minded to continue to read after the first sighting of a spelling or linguistic decision that they dislike. The benefit here is twofold: first, the reader does not waste their time, and second, the publication need not provide or alter itself for them, or publish their letters.

Fifth, choice of orthography influences æsthetic flavour; as æsthetic taste differs, it is only natural that there should be diversity in orthography as well.

Is there a cost? There almost certainly exists one—orthographic diversity may cause confusion or issues when one learns a language. Yet it is hardly the case that the principal cause of Britain’s present educational woes with the English language are the product of orthographic diversity, though it may be a minor contributor. The English language has coped without significant ill effect with the gulf between American and Commonwealth orthography; it also manages to proceed despite other differences. Hence, in a comparative between internal and external diversity, and merely external diversity, it makes little difference whether arguments over ligation are between Britons and Americans, or Britons and other Britons; the difference still exists.

More importantly, it is not clear why schools need the rest of the world to use uniform orthography. Perhaps children should initially read books that employ standardised orthography, but, thereafter, it is not clear quite what is inhibited. Indeed, to the extent that there are non-obvious differences in usage, it may be better that people are made aware by visible difference that there is occasionally a difference in usage in other, less visible forms. One particularly pertinent example is the use of ‘would’ in countries without a long history of English usage. In India, for example, it is common to hear that the government ‘would implement a scheme’; it is not that, were something the case, the government would, but rather that the government will.

As contact between speakers of languages from different regions increases, due to the rise of media which are not constrained by geographical distance, such as the internet, understanding of such difference will become increasingly necessary. Hence, even on the metric upon which it seems most likely that orthographic diversity fails, it seems, instead, that such diversity is beneficial.