Principles of English spelling formation

384 Pages·2017·4.49 MB·English

Principles of English spelling formation

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment
of a Doctoral degree in Linguistics

Trinity College Dublin
31 July, 2017

Des Ryan
11265114
F
P

σ σ
s w

Rh Rh

On Nu Co On Nu Co

/ s p e l ɪ ŋ /
↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕
< s p e l l i ng >

On Nu Co On Nu Co

Rh Rh

σs σw

F
G
Declaration

I declare that this thesis has not been submitted as an exercise for a degree at this
or any other university and it is entirely my own work.
I agree to deposit this thesis in the University’s open access institutional
repository or allow the library to do so on my behalf, subject to Irish Copyright
Legislation and Trinity College Library conditions of use and acknowledgement.

________________________________
Abstract
Studies of English spelling have primarily focussed on correspondences between
spelling and sound among core, standard spellings. Segmental-level
correspondences have been examined in detail (Venezky 1970, Cummings 1988,
Carney 1994, Rollings 2004), while recent work shows that English spellings also
encode supra-segmental information (Evertz and Primus 2013, Evertz 2014). An
outstanding problem is the degree to which morphemic spelling is applied across
the system (c.f. Venezky 1970: 120; Carney 1994: 18). Berg et al. (2014) observe
that the spelling of affixes is more stable than the spelling of bases, hence
<profane> alternates with <profanity>, not *<profanety> or *<profaneity>. Yet
none of these theories address in detail why certain spellings are chosen over
others.
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.
***
Acknowledgements
It has been a privilege to spend a sizeable chunk of my life engaged in the
research that I wanted to do, and this has been dependent on the faith of several
people and the financial backing of others. Nevertheless, doctoral studies are
notoriously isolating and repetitive, like cycling around the same island for
several years, so every scrap of intellectual and personal help has been very
welcome.
Breffni O’Rourke, my very pleasant supervisor, believed in me and my
project from the beginning and has helped me for many years, through countless
conversations and insightful, detailed comments on my work. Vivian Cook has
been my long-term co-editor on a complementary project, The Routledge
Handbook of the English writing system, and I have learnt so much from his vast
experience. He too put trust in me from a very early stage. Thanks also to the
thirty-plus unpaid contributors who have given so much of their time to that
project, and the growth in our understanding of the field. Heinz Giegerich was a
great help during my two stints working with him in Edinburgh, as were Patrick
Honeybone, Warren Maguire and Meg Laing. Thanks to the many people who
have organised conferences or let me give guest lectures; every talk has helped:
Beatrice Primus, Martin Evertz, Frank Kirchhoff, Martin Neef, Anneke Neijt,
Nanna Fuhrhop; Rhona Alcorn, George Walkden, David Denison. Communities
of research wouldn’t exist without such efforts.
Thanks to the people in the linguistics community in Trinity, especially
Jenny O’Reilly, and the people in the Long Room Hub, where I was fortunate
enough to have a desk for over four years. Shout outs to Fergus Robson, Tim
Murtagh, Manus O’Dwyer, Guilherme Braga, Feng Wei, Deirdre Dunlevy, Peter
Sheekey, Robin Fuller, Frank Leahy, Mary Stefanazzi, Sarah Barry, Sarah Dunne,
and Caitríona Curtis.
Thanks to people who have read and discussed my work in detail at
various stages: Jeff Kallen and Heath Rose in Trinity; Jesper Kruse, Robin Fuller,
and anonymous reviewers whose fresh criticisms taught me a lot; also to my two
external examiners, Lynne Cahill and Mark Sebba, whose recommendations have
forced me to dig deeper and get even more out of myself. Most of all, thanks to
my sister, Maryanne, who has cast vigilant, doctoral eyes on many drafts of the
text, at times when I needed it most.
I am very fortunate to have a large family, most of whom are nearby, and
all of whom are regularly on the phone. Thanks to my mam for being such an
inspiration and so supportive, to my dad for his constant good humour and work
ethic. Thanks to my five big sisters, Catherine, Barbara, Maryanne, Emer and
Margaret, whose support grows and grows; to their respective husbands (Mick,
Darren, Colm, Gerry and David), and their kids, some of whom are old enough
now to take me Christmas shopping: Eoin, Emilie, Eleanor, Niall; Stephen, Laura;
Juliette, Darragh, Oisin; Eli, Benjamin and Donnchadh. Thanks to the several
people who I’ve lived with, especially Gabe Murphy, Brian Storan, Jack Olohan,
Maria Costas, to all my friends in Dublin, especially Graham Kearns, Mob, Sean
Flynn, Jasper O’Connor, Imogen Rabone, Mono, Michael McCormack, Nick
Leonard, Jamie Blake-Knox, and David White; in Edinburgh: James Maxwell-
Penny and Bill Thompson. Thanks to Seán Farrell, Elske Rahill and Phoenix,
Fintan and Brocc for putting me up for the summer of 2013. RIP Michel. A lot
more people have left Dublin in recent years but it’s good they are finally coming
back. I have missed you all. Thanks to the uncountable number of people who
have been interested in my work, especially since my early days writing a blog
about spelling at a2dez.com, and to all the people who have even asked to read the
thesis. That keeps me going.
Thanks to the many great baristas working in Dublin’s growing coffee
scene, in the old 3FE, Vice, Cup, Angel, Kaph, Two Pups and, latterly, in Sligo’s
Sweat Beat. Thanks to the growing army of podcasters who have kept me
entertained for years: Second Captains, Radiolab, The Comedian’s Comedian, An
Irishman Abroad, Hardcore History.
Huge thanks are due to the Irish Research Council, who gave me a full
scholarship for three years, and to Dublin City Council who paid my fees in my
first year, a grant that has sadly been abolished. Language teaching work has also
been a big part of my life, so thanks to both my employers and to the endless flow
of students who have taught me about the English language from a different
perspective. Thanks also to all the medical people who have helped me in recent
years. My knee surgeon Ray Moran, my physiotherapist and de facto counsellor,
Andrew Watson. Recovering from a cruciate ligament injury was good mental
preparation for doing a PhD. These things don’t fix themselves. A special thanks
goes to the backroom teams in Trinity who do so much unseen work. To Kieran
Lewis my occupational therapist, to Annemarie Naughton and Louise Hamilton at
student counselling. To the library staff for all their help, to Helen Thornbury and
other administrative staff. Thanks to Spiro Jamie for telling me about Irlen
syndrome, to Alison Crowley for my diagnosis, and to Aislinn Ryan for helping
me find my tint. My life is so much better with my coloured lenses. I hope we can
all help more people. Light sensitivity is a subtle but profound problem which
affects everything from your mood to your relationships to your ability to read
and write. I would never have finished this project without my Irlen glasses.
The greatest thanks goes to Sharifa, whose love, support and patience has
been unending, and may our love last forever. Here’s to many fun times ahead,
along with our newborn baby, Valentine Amon.
***
Conventions and abbreviations
car
• The word car is under discussion
<car>
• The spelling of the word is under discussion. Illegal or incorrect spellings
are preceded by an asterisk, hence *<kar>. Putative spellings have a
question mark, ?<ka>.
/kɑ:/, /kɑr/
• Phonemic forms. This particular word differs between British Received
Pronunciation (transcribed here first) and General American (second).
These accents are explained in more detail below.
//kar//
• A deeper ‘underlying form’. Only applicable in reference to certain
theories (e.g. Chomsky and Halle 1968) or historical forms underlying
different present-day accents.
[kɑ:], [kɑr], [kær]
• Phonetic forms.

{car}
• The morpheme ‘car’, as occurs in car, cars, car tax, carless, etc.

<VC>
• A sequence of letters involving a vowel letter <a e i o u> and then a
consonant letter: e.g. <at, et, ip, ok, uv>.
/VC/
• A phonological sequence involving a short vowel and then a consonant.
Long vowels are marked with a colon. The words ‘vowel’ and ‘consonant’
only refer to sounds. Otherwise I talk about ‘vowel letters’ and ‘consonant
letters’. On this important distinction, see Carney (1994: 9–11).
<VC C >
1 2
• A vowel letter followed by a consonant letter, followed by another
(usually different) consonant letter, e.g. <arp, err, irk, onk, unk>.
#
• Word-final or syllable-final. <VC#> means spellings that end in a vowel
letter then a consonant letter (it, fit, fix, quickfix etc.). /VC#/ similarly
means words that end in a vowel then a single consonant (e.g it, pit, pick,
pitch, tripswitch). It doesn’t matter here how many letters are used to
represent the sounds.
§
• Following Carney (1994), this symbol indicates the subsystem to which a
spelling belongs, be it §Greek, modern §French, §Italian, etc. The term
§Latinate covers the interlocking influence of Latin and older forms of
French. §Basic is a native or default system, as many borrowed words
show no obvious subsystem markers (e.g. table). By contrast, chlorophyll
is §Greek and chaise longue is §French. A catch-all group is known as
§Exotic (e.g. Iraq) and a defective group is called §Romance, and seldom
used here.
≡
• Correspondence between spelling and sound: e.g. <c> ≡ /k/, or
<cat> ≡ /kæt

σ Syllable g Graphematic form
On Syllable onset F Graphematic foot
G
Rh Syllable rhyme W Graphematic word
G
Nu Syllable nucleus ( ) Foot boundary
Co Syllable coda . Syllable boundary
p Phonological form ˈ Primary stress
F Phonological foot ˌ Secondary stress
P
W Phonological word ? spelling candidate
P