Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
$XWKRUV5LFKDUG/9HQH]N\
6RXUFH5HDGLQJ5HVHDUFK4XDUWHUO\9RO1R6SULQJSS
3XEOLVKHGE\International Reading Association
6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/747031 .
$FFHVVHG
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ira. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
International Reading Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Reading Research Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
English orthography:its graphical structure
and its relation to sound
A large part of the material presented here is derived from the author's un-
published Ph.D. dissertation (Venezky, 1965),
75
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY ? Spring 1967 11/3
letter of the alphabet has, besides its name (nomen) and appearance
(figura), a power (potestas) or sound. A description of the orthogra-
phy involves simply a classification of the letters according to their
powers.' Thus, orthography from the time of Alfred to the present day
has been delimited by the letters and their powers. So ingrained has
this principle become that some contemporary linguists have at-
tempted, by substituting grapheme for letter, to sanctify it with the
countenance of linguistic science without examining how unsound it
is.2
Some critical exceptions to this view are found in the writings
of Francis (1958), Hockett (1958), and Vachek (1959). While they
all have recognized that the orthography is more complex than an ir-
regular letter-to-sound system, only Francis attempted, with some suc-
cess, to analyze the relationship between spelling and sound and to
enumerate the non-phonemic elements entering into this relationship.
Most other linguists have paid little attention to the orthography. For
example, Bloomfield (1933) held that writing was not a part of lan-
guage, but simply an imperfect image of speech. Even though he wrote
at length on the teaching of reading, he maintained that English or-
thography was simply a grossly irregular alphabetic system (1933, pp.
500-501).
Spelling reformers, although having contributed an enormous
quantity of literature on English orthography, seldom analyzed the ob-
ject of their scorn beyond the more common examples of scribal
pedantry. Their arguments were, and are still, based upon the a priori
assumption that alphabets should be perfectly phonetic. It is no sur-
prise, therefore, that most spelling reformers concerned themselves
with direct letter-to-sound relationships and ignored all other facets of
the writing system.3
Grammarians, like spelling reformers, also viewed the or-
thography as a mirror for speech. The earliest grammarians were pri-
marily concerned with correct pronunciation and directed their atten-
tion towards relating spelling directly to sound.4 As spelling was
regularized, they turned more and more toward establishing spelling
rules, while still retaining a direct spelling-to-sound standpoint. From
the time of the earliest English grammars, however, a small number
of grammarians discerned non-phonetic features in the orthography,
1. This trichotomy is discussed by Einar 3. See in particular R. E. Zachrisson
Haugen (1950, pp. 41-42). (1931).
2. The so-called grapheme-phoneme par- 4. Summaries of statements on orthogra-
allel is discussed in Venezky (1965). phy from Aristotle to Murray can be
found in Brown (1859).
English orthography VENEZKY 79
Source materials
The research reported here began at Cornell University in
1961 as part of an inter-disciplinary study of the reading process
(Levin, 1963). After an initial study of the spelling-to-sound corre-
spondences in monosyllables, a computer program was written to de-
rive and tabulate spelling-to-sound correspondence in the 20,000 most
common English words (Venezky, 1963).' This program was used to
obtain, for a corpus of the 20,000 most common words in English, the
following information:
Graphemic alternations
A feature of the graphemic system which has arisen partially
from scribal necessity and partially from pedantry is the alternation
of various letters according to their graphemic environments. In such
cases, two different letters which correspond to the same sound occur
in complementary (or near-complementary) distribution. For exam-
ple, the functionally simple vowel spellings i and y alternate, y occur-
ring generally in final position and i in all other positions. In addition,
regular rules control the alternation of final y to i before certain suf-
fixes. This alternation holds not only for the simple vowel spellings i
and y, but also for the compound spellings in which these two letters
occur as the second elements, e.g., ai/ay, ei/ey. In the compound units,
the y spellings generally appear before other vowel spellings and in
morpheme final position, and the i spellings appear in all other posi-
tions. For example, bait:bay, receive:grey, boisterous:boy.
u and w when each corresponds to /w/ also occur in comple-
mentary distribution. As a simple consonant spelling, u occurs in a
limited number of environments-after q, g, s, and a few others-in
all other cases w occurs. As second units in compound vowel spellings,
u and w alternate similarly to i and y. Thus, w occurs as the second
element before other vowel spellings and in morpheme final position,
while u occurs in all other positions, e.g., auction:awe:draw; feud:
ewer:flew; ounce:coward:vow.
Several other alternation patterns should also be considered in
an exhaustive analysis of the graphemic system. These patterns are
listed in Table 2.
In addition to these alternations, a number of graphemic sub-
stitutions, introduced, for the most part, between the times of Chaucer
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY ? Spring 1967 11/3
Table2 Additionalgraphemealternationpatterns
1. ous/os Word final ous becomes os before the suffix ity, e.g., curious:curiosity.
2. ile i in the suffix ity becomes e when the suffix is preceded by i, e.g.,
society, variety, sobriety.
3. er/re With the addition of certain suffixes, word final er becomes re and
then the e is dropped. Thus, center:central, theater:theatrical. In ad-
dition, er and re spellings alternate in word final position. re occurs
after c and g, and er occurs in all other positions.
4. Consonant Gemination of a final consonant occurs before certain suffixes, e.g.,
gemination run:running, hop:hopped.
5. elo Final e alternates with zero under certain types of suffixation. Thus,
dive:diving.
bake axe
ache badge
concede edge
lichen hodge
clothe kitchen
crude luxury
1. Free and checked vowels are described checked to short. A description of vowel
in Kurath (1964, pp. 17-20). Free cor- mappings is given in Weir and Venezky
responds generally to the traditional long; (1965, pp. 21-28).
English orthography VENEZKY 87
Preliminaries to orthographicanalysis:
spelling-to-soundcorrespondences
Types of correspondences
After pursuing the graphemic labyrinth through its intra-
graphemic complexities, the next task is to analyze the relationships of
these units to sound. The first object here is to show that even if the
direct spelling-to-sound view is assumed, more types of relationships
must be considered than the simple regular-irregularclasses that bisect
the traditional approach to this subject. Furthermore, it is shown that
the concepts of regular and irregular are far more complex than is
generally assumed, and, indeed, require quite sophisticated notions for
adequate definition. For the present, however, regular and irregular
will be used in a loose sense, meaning high frequency and low fre-
quency without careful enumeration of what objects are to be counted
to arrive at such statistics.
Regular spelling-to-sound correspondences can be classed first
as either invariant or variant. f, for example, is invariant since it cor-
responds regularly to /f/. In fact, this correspondence is so regular that
only one exception, of, occurs among the 20,000 most common Eng-
lish words. Several other consonant spelling units like ck, m, v, and
z are also invariant or nearly so. The vowel spellings are rarely in-
variant, though not irregular in most cases.
Variant correspondences are those correspondences that are
still regular, but that relate the same spelling to two or more pronun-
ciations depending upon regular graphemic, phonological, or gram-
matical features. The letter c, as an example, corresponds to /s/ when
it occurs before e, i, y plus a consonant or juncture; in most other posi-
tions, it corresponds to /k/. The spelling k corresponds to zero in initial
position before n, e.g., knee, know, knife; in all other positions, k cor-
1. For a summary of markers in English orthography, see Venezky (in press).
English orthography VENEZKY 89
Morphemic features
Morpheme boundaries Morpheme boundaries must be known to
predict certain spelling-to-sound correspondences. The spelling ph, for
example, regularly corresponds to /f/ as in phase, sphere, and mor-
pheme. In shepherd, however, ph clearly does not correspond to /f/,
but to /p/. One way to explain this is to say that shepherd is an excep-
tion to the more general rule of ph-/f/. For consistency, then, the same
analysis must be repeated with uphill and topheavy, which is some-
what specious. A more satisfactory procedure is to say that ph corre-
sponds to /f/ when it lies within a single graphemic allomorph and
that across morpheme boundaries ph is treated as the separate letters
p and h. Therefore, one factor that should be considered in the spelling-
to-sound relationship is morpheme boundaries. That this factor is not
unique to ph can be seen from the following examples.
4] Many word final clusters contain silent letters, e.g., gm, gn,
mb (e.g., paradigm, sign, and bomb). Before certain mor-
pheme boundaries, the silent letter remains silent, as in
paradigms, signer, and bombing. As long as the morpheme
boundary is recognized, the correct pronunciation can be pre-
dicted. If the morpheme boundary is not recognized, then the
three forms above would be thrown together with stigma,
ignite, and bamboo.
boys melodious
judges stylus
cats apropos
man's careless
The past tense marker (e)d functions similarly, but is not entirely
regular. In all of these cases, nevertheless, the direct spelling-to-sound
approach fails unless it is based upon morpheme identity-and, if so,
the approach is no longer a direct spelling-to-sound approach.
Another area in which the direct correspondence approach
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY ? Spring 1967 11/3
Phonotactical influences
Consonant clusters A knowledge of phoneme arrangements which
are not allowed in English words is a necessary prerequisite for ana-
lyzing many spelling-to-sound correspondences. Sequences like /bp/
and /pb/ do not occur within English words-where they would occur,
as in subpoena and clapboard, the speaker drops one sound or the other
(with /pb/ and /bp/, the first sound is always omitted). While the
spellings do not change, the pronunciations do. Yet, to label the pro-
nunciation of b in subpoena as irregular, just as one does for the b in
debt, is to ignore a pattern of English phonology. The elision of sounds
in consonant clusters can be predicted, not only across morpheme
boundaries, but also in initial and final positions, as in knee, gnat,
bomb, and sing. In all of these cases, the correct pronunciation can be
derived by first mapping all spelling units into some prephonemic level
and then applying the rules for leveling non-English clusters to obtain
the phonemic forms. Thus, knee, gnat, bomb, sing, become first //kni//,
//gna?t//, //bamb//, //siqg//, and then the non-allowed clusters are
leveled, giving /ni/, /net/, /bam/, /sil/.
signing would first be broken into sign and ing and then each
of these graphemic allomorphs would be mapped onto the
morphophonemic level, yielding //sign// and //ing//. Upon
combination of the two forms and the application of stress
and certain phonotactical rules, the form //sfgnIjg// would
result. By the rules for leveling consonant clusters, final
//lg// would become //i// and //gn// would become //n//
English orthography VENEZKY 95
Vowel correspondences
Following is a brief sketch of spelling-to-sound correspond-
ences for vowel spellings. A complete summary of consonant corre-
spondences can be found in Venezky (1965).
a //e// //e//
sane sanity
mate mat
ration rattle
e //i// //e
athlete athletic
mete met
penal pennant
i //ai// //I//
rise risen
malign malignant
site sit
o /o/l/ //a//
cone conic
robe rob
posy possible
S//ju// /a//
induce induction
rude rudder
lucre luxury
?
The retention or elision of //j// before
//u// is handled as a morphophonemic
process.
a rate-rat anal-annals
e mete-met Peter-petter
i site-sit diner-dinner
o pope-pop coma-comma
u cute-cut super-supper
1. The non-gemination of v and th has lem exists. While ss, which is needed to
led to a large number of exceptions to make the correspondence i-//I//, is al-
the major pattern for the correspond- lowed, it generally corresponds to //s//
ences of the primary vowel spellings. in medial position, as in blossom, gossip,
For example, cover, bevel, level, river, and lasso, so it could not be employed
brother, mother, other have vowel spell- where s corresponds to //z//. The present
ings corresponding to checked alternates use of ss is derived from old French or-
in environments which indicate free al- thography where "intervocalic ss served
ternates. To indicate the checked alter- to distinguish voiceless s from voiced s
nate, v and th would have to be gemi- (= z)" (Ewert, 1933, p. 113).
nated, but the graphotactical patterns of 2. Sub-patterns for vowels before r and
English exclude the doubling of these I and for vowels after w are discussed in
units. In prison a slightly different prob- Venezky (1965, pp. 164-69).
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY - Spring 1967 11/3
o cone conic
neurosis neurotic
phone phonic
2] -ion free - checked
e concede concession
convene convention
descrete descretion
i collide collision
decide decision
provide provision
u reduce reduction
guage, the individual most frequently does not have any knowledge of
the language he is to read and, in the majority of the cases, he desires
to translate directly from writing to meaning. In learning to read one's
native language, however, the individual brings a reasonably adequate
set of language habits, as evidenced by his ability to speak. Learning to
read in this situation requires primarily the translation from written
symbols to sound, a procedure which is the basis of the reading process
and is probably the only language skill unique to reading. (Compre-
hension, for example, while a necessary criterion for reading, is a
function of both speech and writing.) The primary concern of this
paper is the teaching of this translation process; references hereafter
to the teaching of reading, unless qualified otherwise, refer to spelling-
to-sound translation only.
A good reader in the sense of this paper is one who can not
only pronounce all of the words which he has been taught to read, but
can also pronounce a high percentage of new words which he en-
counters. Certainly a person who could do the former task-that of
pronouncing words he had seen before-but has displayed no ability
to pronounce new words, would be classed as a deficient reader. Most
literates form some spelling-to-sound generalizations regardless of the
methods which they encountered in their initial reading instruction.
What these generalizations are, how they develop, and how they differ
from one literate to another is at present unknown.
The patterns summarized here represent an ideal system for
translating from spelling to sound, formed by assigning equal weights
to each of the words used in the original corpus. It is inconceivable
that any human could without special effort arrive at the same rules.
Type-token relationships probably are highly influential in the forma-
tion of such patterns. The pronunciations of initial ch, for example, are
irregular according to the present results since no consistent cues can
be used for selecting among /9/, /k/, and / /. The average literate,
nevertheless, would most probably pronounce initial ch in a strange
word as /1/ simply because most of the frequently occurring words
with initial ch are pronounced with /c/.
Which of the major patterns is learned by literates is not
known-in fact, extremely little is known about the extent of gen-
eralization in this area. Furthermore, there has been so little discussion
of this process that no clearly defined criteria for generalization have
been formulated. In the ch pattern cited above, for example, what
would good generalization be? To pronounce all new initial ch words
with /6/? To pronounce x per cent with /c/, y per cent with /I/, and z
English orthography VENEZKY 103
REFERENCES
BETHEL, J. R. (Ed.) Webster's new col- BROWN, G. The grammar of English gram-
legiate dictionary. (2nd ed.) Springfield, mars. (4th ed.) New York: Samuel S. &
Mass.: Merriam, 1956. W. Wood, 1859.
BLOOMFIELD, L. Language. New York: H. CRAIGIE, w. English spelling, its rules and
Holt, 1933. reasons. New York: F. S. Crofts, 1927.
BOLINGER, D. Visual morphemes. Language, DOUGLAS,J. James Douglas on English
1946, 22, 333-40. pronunciation, c. 1740. B. Holmberg
BRADLEY,H. On the relations between (Ed.), Lund Studies in English, 26.
spoken and written language with special Lund: Gleerup, 1956.
references to English. British Academy, EWERT, A. The French language. London:
1914, 6, 211-32. Faber & Faber, 1933.
English orthography VENEZKY 105