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
|