JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for GERMAN-STUDIES Archives


GERMAN-STUDIES Archives

GERMAN-STUDIES Archives


GERMAN-STUDIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

GERMAN-STUDIES Home

GERMAN-STUDIES Home

GERMAN-STUDIES  October 2002

GERMAN-STUDIES October 2002

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

The German spelling reform - where is it going?

From:

Elke Philburn <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Elke Philburn <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 1 Oct 2002 03:22:49 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (205 lines)

Four years after the introduction of the spelling reform (the so-
called „Rechtschreibreform“) and three years before the end of the
transition period during which both orthographies are still accepted as
valid, the feasibility of fully implementing the new spelling remains an
issue for debate. What has actually emerged over the past four or so years,
is a range of different spelling systems, which, I would argue, reflects a
certain degree of  insecurity. For example, most newspapers and press
agencies have adopted the new spelling only partly, implementing in effect
their own spelling rules („Hausorthographien”, overview below). In non-
professional writing, what has emerged is what some reform critics have
called „arbitrary spelling” („Beliebigkeitsschreibung”), characterised by
a  mixing of both orthographies. Alongside these are new types of
idiosyncratic mis-spellings, apparently a result of misunderstandings or
over-generalisation of new rules, being neither „new” nor „old” but
simply „incorrect”.

Below, I have highlighted some of the current issues concerning the
spelling reform, and included a number of hyperlinks for further reading. I
will also take a look at some German textbooks and consider the situation
of teachers.


1. The public

A recent survey by the Allensbach Institute (April 2002) showed that the
proportion of reform-supporters was ten percent, about as many as in 1997
and in line with a number of other surveys carried out in the 1990‘s.
According to Allensbach, only the number of people feeling „indifferent”
towards the reform rose slightly. A considerably higher percentage of
people - around 50 percent - said that they would like to return to the
traditional spelling system. A survey carried out by the „Hörzu“ magazine
revealed that even generally well-known cases of new spelling are practiced
by no more than about 20 percent of population (see below).

2. Schools

How far the introduction of the new rules has been successful in schools is
difficult to establish. Here, the introduction of the new orthography
started earlier, in many cases in 1996. The 3rd report of
the „Zwischenstaatliche Kommission für deutsche Rechtschreibung,“ published
in February this year (see below), suggested that the introduction had
been „unproblematic”. However, the report acknowledged that teaching
materials in traditional spelling remain widely in use. Considering the
length and complexity of the „Amtliche Regelung” (about 100 pages of A4),
it is understandable that few teachers - and even less so the German
speaking public - have a comprehensive understanding of the changes to the
orthography that the spelling reform entails.

3. Dictionaries

The implementation of the new rules in dictionaries has been shown to be
accompanied by various hitches. For the first time, lexicographers -
expected to match the requirements of the reform - have had to adapt
spelling to rules that do not reflect the historically developed and
accepted spelling conventions of the German-speaking community. So far, two
reformed editions of the Duden spelling dictionary („Die deutsche
Rechtschreibung”) have been published (1996 and 2000), with the latter
showing substantial changes and revisions. In a response to apparent
problems with the new rules, the latest edition of the „Wahrig
Universalwörterbuch Rechtschreibung” (2002) actually includes
recommendations for corrections to rules that have attracted the most
criticism.

4. Textbooks

All recent editions of German textbooks have been printed in reformed
spelling. However, this has been done to varying degrees. From a personal
viewpoint, my impression from several textbooks that I use in my own
teaching is that editors have been rather careful not to make more changes
than necessary. For example, „Themen neu” (Hueber Verlag, 1999), „Em
Hauptkurs” (Hueber Verlag, 1997) and „Leselandschaften” (Verlag für
Deutsch, 1998) keep the traditional spelling throughout all literary texts.

On a more specific note:

„Themen 2 neu” and „Em Hauptkurs” maintain the spelling „selbständig”
rather than the new optional variant „selbstständig” throughout. The same
applies to „sechziger Jahre” (new option: Sechzigerjahre). None of the
three books use the new obligatory spelling „so genannt” but stick with the
traditional „sogenannt”.

„Themen 2 neu”:

This book ignores obligatory new spellings in the following cases: p.
91; „gutbezahlte” (new: „gut bezahlte”), p. 108; „im übrigen” (new: „im
Übrigen”), p. 117; „90jährige” (new: „90-jährige”), p. 122; „tun mir leid”
(new: „tun mir Leid”). Also, „Themen 2 neu” maintains the comma in
infinitive clauses with „um zu” (p. 146). Surprisingly, „zusammenzuwohnen”
becomes separated in „zusammen zu wohnen”, which is not in line with any of
the new rules.(p. 111).

„Em Hauptkurs”:

P. 37; „zur Zeit” (new: zurzeit”), p. 68: „potentiell”
(optional „potenziell”), p. 106; „weitgehend” (new: „weit gehend”), p.
122; „aufeinanderfolgend” (new: „aufeinander folgend”).

„Em Hauptkurs Arbeitsbuch”:

P. 38: „auseinanderzuhalten” (new: „auseinander zu halten”), p.
42: „auseinanderzusetzen” (new: „auseinander zu setzen”), p.
70; „kennenlernen” (new: „kennen lernen”), „zur Zeit” (see above). The
spelling „zusammen gearbeitet” (p. 89) is not in line with the new rules.

„Leselandschaft 1”:

P. 20: „plattgetretene” (new: „platt getretene”), p. 24; „der blaue Planet”
(new „der Blaue Planet”), p. 39; „selbstgemacht” (new: „selbst gemacht”),
p. 40; „hierzulande” (new: „hier zu Lande”), p. 77; „alleinerziehende”
(new: „allein erziehende”), „nichtehelichen” (new: „nicht ehelichen”); p.
84; „phantasievoll” (new: „fantasievoll”), p. 107; „Greuel”
(new: „Gräuel”); p. 111; „auseinanderzusetzen” (new: „auseinander zu
setzen”), p. 112; „plaziert” (new: „platziert”), p. 114; „Andersdenkende”
(new: „anders Denkende”).


Conclusions:
Maintaining the traditional spelling in literary texts is justifiable, in
the interest of retaining originality. However, the pedagogical use of
handling orthography in this way might be questionable. The deviations from
the new spelling are relatively unproblematic if we assume that they still
agree with the spellings used by most people of the German-speaking
community. In some cases where the new spelling is applied - as in „es tut
mir Leid” or „du hast Recht” - it might be difficult to explain to students
why a part of a verb phrase (previously „leid tun” or „recht haben”) is now
capitalised when we are clearly not dealing with a noun. It seems the only
way to justify this is to refer to special cases due to the reform. What
can be said with certainty is that the spelling rules, as set out in the
original document („Amtliche Regelung”), cannot remain unrevised if
anything like an agreement between how people write, and what the
dictionaries say is to be achieved.


5. What does it mean for teachers?

Most importantly, students should not be put off from learning German if
they hear about the reform. As far as marking is concerned, it is unlikely
that the present confusion over German spelling will be to the detriment of
students‘ grades. In general, I suspect in a situation like this, teachers
will tend to be more tolerant towards (possible) incongruence with the
rules. Perhaps the safest way of handling the new spelling might be to
abide by the the new rules only so far as the textbooks require, and in
cases of doubt to maintain the traditional spelling. In private writing,
people are of course free to choose whatever spelling they prefer.

It is worth noting that an up-to-date and very user-friendly dictionary has
been published to accommodate for those people who would like to continue
(or return to) writing in traditional spelling:

http://www.rechtschreibreform.com/Buch/Woerterbuch.html

I would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Elke Philburn

[log in to unmask]
___________________________________________________

Hyperlinks (all in German):

Different spelling rules („Hausorthographien”) of publishers and news-
agencies

http://staff-www.uni-marburg.de/~schneid9/hausorth.pdf

Survey of the Allensbach Institute:

http://www.ifd-allensbach.de/news/prd_0207.html

Survey published by the magazine „Hörzu“:

http://www.rechtschreibreform.com/Perlen/KraftBank/KraftBank.pl?
SunAug2508:58:52GMT2002

http://www.rechtschreibreform.com/Perlen/KraftBank/KraftBank.pl?
SunAug2522:31:36GMT2002

Overviews of some of the some of the discrepancies found in different
dictionaries:

http://staff-www.uni-marburg.de/~schneid9/konfusio.pdf

http://staff-www.uni-marburg.de/~schneid9/bertdude.pdf

A comprehensive review of Duden’s „Deutscher Rechtschreibung”  (2000)

http://www.rechtschreibreform.com/Seiten2/Wissenschaft/98008IcklerDuden2.htm
l

Download of the complete „Amtliche Regelung”

http://www.ids-mannheim.de/grammis/reform/download.html

3. Bericht der Zwischenstaatlichen Kommission für deutsche Rechtschreibung

http://www.ids-mannheim.de/reform/Gesamttext.pdf

A review of textbooks for German as a foreign language

http://rechtschreibreform.de/php/einzelner_Datensatz.php?BeitragNr=11333

A list of „ungrammatical” spellings:

http://staff-www.uni-marburg.de/~schneid9/gzs-ungr.pdf

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager