Article published In:
From Letter to Sound: New perspectives on writing systemsEdited by Martin Neef and Beatrice Primus †
[Written Language & Literacy 7:2] 2005
► pp. 139–163
Edited by Martin Neef and Beatrice Primus †
[Written Language & Literacy 7:2] 2005
► pp. 139–163
In search of the perfect orthography
Philologists, linguists, and educators have insisted for several centuries that the ideal orthography has a one-to-one correspondence between grapheme and phoneme. Others, however, have suggested deviations for such functions as distinguishing homophones, displaying popular alternative spellings, and retaining morpheme identity. If, indeed, the one-to-one ideal were accepted, the International Phonetic Alphabet should become the orthographic standard for all enlightened nations, yet the failure of even a single country to adopt it for practical writing suggests that other factors besides phonology are considered important for a writing system.
Whatever the ideal orthography might be, the practical writing systems adopted upon this earth reflect linguistic, psychological, and cultural considerations. Knowingly or unknowingly, countries have adopted orthographies that favour either the early stages of learning to read or the advanced stages, that is, the experienced reader. The more a system tends towards a one-to-one relationship between graphemes and phonemes, the more it assists the new reader and the non-speaker of the language while the more it marks etymology and morphology, the more it favours the experienced reader. The study of psychological processing in reading demonstrates that human capacities for processing print are so powerful that complex patterns and irregularities pose only a small challenge. Orthographic regularity is extracted from lexical input and used to recognise words during reading. To understand how such a system develops, researchers should draw on the general mechanisms of perceptual learning.
Cited by (47)
Cited by 47 other publications
Shepperd, Louise
2024. Cross-Scriptal Orthographic Influence on Second Language Phonology. Languages 9:6 ► pp. 210 ff. 
Wood, Carla, Miguel Garcia-Salas, Christopher Schatschneider & Michelle Torres-Chavarro
2024. Morphological Complexity in Writing: Implications for Writing Quality and Patterns of Change. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 33:3 ► pp. 1432 ff.
Joyce, Terry & Dimitrios Meletis
2021. Alternative criteria for writing system typology. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 40:3 ► pp. 257 ff.
Osterkamp, Sven & Gordian Schreiber
2021. <Th>e ubi<qu>ity of polygra<ph>y and its significan<ce> for <th>e typology of <wr>iti<ng> systems. Written Language & Literacy 24:2 ► pp. 171 ff.
Wood, Katherine R., Eileen Wood, Alexandra Gottardo, Karin Archer, Robert Savage & Noëlla Piquette
2021. Workshop Training to Facilitate Parent-Child Instructional Opportunities for Reading and Social Development with Kindergarten Students. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 35:3 ► pp. 438 ff.
Pae, Hye K.
2020. The Alphabet. In Script Effects as the Hidden Drive of the Mind, Cognition, and Culture [Literacy Studies, 21], ► pp. 61 ff.
Burkhardt, Jey Lingam & Jürgen Martin Burkhardt
McClung, Nicola A. & P. David Pearson
Meletis, Dimitrios
Daffern, Tessa
2017. Linguistic skills involved in learning to spell: An Australian study. Language and Education 31:4 ► pp. 307 ff.
Mirza, Amna, Alexandra Gottardo & Xi Chen
2017. Reading in multilingual learners of Urdu (L1), English (L2) and Arabic (L3). Reading and Writing 30:1 ► pp. 187 ff.
GOTTARDO, ALEXANDRA, ADRIAN PASQUARELLA, XI CHEN & GLORIA RAMIREZ
2016. The impact of language on the relationships between phonological awareness and word reading in different orthographies: A test of the psycholinguistic grain size theory in bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics 37:5 ► pp. 1083 ff.
CHRISOMALIS, STEPHEN
2015. What's so improper about fractions? Prescriptivism and language socialization at Math Corps. Language in Society 44:1 ► pp. 63 ff.
Daffern, Tessa, Noella Maree Mackenzie & Brian Hemmings
2015. The development of a spelling assessment tool informed by Triple Word Form Theory. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 38:2 ► pp. 72 ff.
Gottardo, Alexandra, Christine Javier, Fataneh Farnia, Lorinda Mak & Esther Geva
2014. Bidirectional cross-linguistic relations of first and second language skills in reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking English learners. Written Language & Literacy 17:1 ► pp. 62 ff.
Gottardo, Alexandra, Christine Javier, Fataneh Farnia, Lorinda Mak & Esther Geva
2016. Bidirectional cross-linguistic relations of first and second language skills in reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking English learners. In Cross-linguistic Transfer in Reading in Multilingual Contexts [Benjamins Current Topics, 89], ► pp. 65 ff.
Heeringa, Wilbert, Femke Swarte, Anja Schüppert & Charlotte Gooskens
2014. Modeling Intelligibility of Written Germanic Languages: Do We Need to Distinguish Between Orthographic Stem and Affix Variation?. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26:4 ► pp. 361 ff.
Galletly, Susan A. & Bruce Allen Knight
2013. Because trucks aren’t bicycles: orthographic complexity as an important variable in reading research. The Australian Educational Researcher 40:2 ► pp. 173 ff.
Cobb, Thomas
2012. Technology and Learning Vocabulary. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics,
Perrone-Bertolotti, M., C. Pichat, J.F. Le Bas, A. Baciu & M. Baciu
2011. Functional MRI evidence for modulation of cerebral activity by grapheme-to-phoneme conversion in French, and by the variable of gender. Journal of Neurolinguistics 24:4 ► pp. 507 ff.
Share, David L.
2008. Orthographic Learning, Phonological Recoding, and Self-Teaching [Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 36], ► pp. 31 ff.
Sénéchal, Monique & Kyle Kearnan
2007. THE ROLE OF MORPHOLOGY IN READING AND SPELLING [Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 35], ► pp. 297 ff.
Peter K. Austin & Julia Sallabank
1999. The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages,
Austin, Peter K. & Julia Sallabank
1999. Introduction. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 1 ff.
Bowern, Claire
1999. Planning a language-documentation project. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 459 ff.
Bradley, David
1999. A survey of language endangerment. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 66 ff.
Conathan, Lisa
1999. Archiving and language documentation. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 235 ff.
Coronel-Molina, Serafin M. & Teresa L. McCarty
1999. Language curriculum design and evaluation for endangered languages. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 354 ff.
Dobrin, Lise M. & Josh Berson
1999. Speakers and language documentation. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 187 ff.
Good, Jeff
1999. Data and language documentation. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 212 ff.
Grenoble, Lenore A.
1999. Language ecology and endangerment. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 27 ff.
Grinevald, Colette & Michel Bert
1999. Speakers and communities. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 45 ff.
Harbert, Wayne
1999. Endangered languages and economic development. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 403 ff.
Hinton, Leanne
1999. Revitalization of endangered languages. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 291 ff.
Holton, Gary
1999. The role of information technology in supporting minority and endangered languages. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 371 ff.
Jukes, Anthony
1999. Researcher training and capacity development in language documentation. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 423 ff.
Lüpke, Friederike
1999. Orthography development. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 312 ff.
Michael, Lev
1999. Language and culture. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 120 ff.
Moriarty, Máiréad
1999. New roles for endangered languages. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 446 ff.
Mosel, Ulrike
1999. Lexicography in endangered language communities. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 337 ff.
Nathan, David
1999. Digital archiving. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 255 ff.
O’Shannessy, Carmel
1999. Language contact and change in endangered languages. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 78 ff.
Palosaari, Naomi & Lyle Campbell
1999. Structural aspects of language endangerment. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 100 ff.
Sallabank, Julia
1999. Language policy for endangered languages. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 277 ff.
Spolsky, Bernard
1999. Language and society. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 141 ff.
Woodbury, Anthony C.
1999. Language documentation. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 159 ff.
[no author supplied]
1999. References. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, ► pp. 483 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.