-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
DAVE DAVIES, HOST:
This is FRESH AIR. The French are having a huge cultural row over some spelling changes the government's about to put into effect, particularly the elimination1 of the circumflex - the little hat-shaped accent that sits on certain vowels3. It leads our linguist4 Geoff Nunberg to wonder why we never have controversies5 over spelling like the French do. Why do we insist on putting up with a spelling system that everybody acknowledges is a chaotic6 mess? Here's Geoff.
GEOFF NUNBERG: The French have gotten themselves into one of their recurrent linguistic7 lathers8, this one over the changes in their spelling that will be taking effect in the fall. The changes were originally proposed more than 25 years ago, but nothing much came of them, until the government recently announced that they'd be incorporated into the new textbooks, at which point traditionalists took to the barricades9. The government's made a point of calling the changes rectifications rather than reforms, and, on the whole, they're pretty minor10. A few words like le week-end (ph) and le strip-tease (ph) will lose their hyphens. The word for onion, oignon, will have to give up its silent I. But what people have gotten most worked up about is the near elimination of the circumflex. That's the pointy little hat that sits on top of the vowel2 in words like hotel and tete-a-tete, marking the spot where a letter was lost sometime in the past.
The changes are supposed to make the written language easier to learn, but there too few of them to make much of a difference. Mastering written French is still going to be as much of a slog as it's always been. Bear in mind that this is a language that has eight different words all pronounced as oh (ph), each of them with its own distinctive11 spelling. Even so, critics have attacked the reforms as a dumbing down of the language of Moliere and Victor Hugo. Opponents have launched a Twitter campaign with a hashtag #jesuiscirconflexe, echoing the Je Suis Charlie of the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
This being France, the debate is laced with political theater. The far-right National Front warned of the obliteration12 of French cultural identity. And one critic compared the government to the Bolsheviks, who eliminated some letters of the Slavic alphabet when they came to power. When the reforms were originally announced by the socialist13 government of Francois Mitterrand, some proponents14 invoked15 the spirit of the French Revolution. The linguist Bernard Ciccolini compared the circumflex to a crown that sits on the heads of certain vowels and suggested tongue in cheek that the government was merely eliminating the last vestige16 of royalty17.
From where we sit, it's all entertainingly Gallic, but then, who are we to talk? Maybe the question isn't why the French get so worked up about spelling but why we don't. After all, it's not as if English orthography18 couldn't do with some rectifications of its own. But we haven't had a major controversy19 over spelling since the early 19th century when Americans got into a dustup over Noah Webster's proposals to make our spelling different from that of the English. We wound up making a few symbolic20 changes, like dropping the U in honor and color and transposing the final letters of theater and center.
But having made our point, we were content to leave everything else as it was. Reformers since then have never stopped agitating21 for a more rational English spelling system. But all they have to show for their pains is that we've dropped the O-U-G-H in doughnut and thruway. We share with the French the honor of having the most difficult spelling systems in the world. But the similarity ends there. They see their spelling as a legacy22 of the literary history that shaped their cultural identity. As they see it, French spelling may be complicated, but it's basically rational, which, as it happens, is how they like to think of themselves, too.
Some scholars point out that English spelling, too, is often more rational than it appears. It can reveal etymologies23 and the hidden relations between words, like the silent G of sign that's pronounced in signify.
But most of us prize our spelling for the very things that make it maddening. As someone once said, it's a chaotic concoction24 of oddities. We like to think of it as cussed, unpredictable and not answerable to any higher authority, which, as it happens, is how we like to think of ourselves, too. So we take a kind of perverse25 pride in all those sets of words where the same letters are pronounced differently - Susy but busy, oven but woven, cove26 versus27 move versus love.
English spelling is not a game for the weak at heart. And it has nothing to do with higher literary culture the way French spelling does. It's that toughness that we celebrate in the ritual of the spelling bee, which is a purely28 oral exercise. In theory, you could win a spelling bee without actually knowing how to read or write at all. It's a contest that rewards diligence, not cultivation29.
Where English spelling is concerned, the imperfect is our paradise. That's why we always resist the efforts to reform it. We may as well resign ourselves to knowing that students a century from now are still going to be wrestling with a dozen or so ways to spell the sound A. But we can take consolation30 in knowing that the conservatism that deters31 us from trying to improve things also prevents us from changing them for the worst.
Our spelling isn't likely to be permanently32 corrupted33 by texting abbreviations and the like, no more than it was led astray by the 20th century advertisers who spelled quick as K-W-I-K or the 19th century telegraph operators who shortened words to save time and money. We'll cling to our unreasonable34 customs and we'll be saved from our own worst impulses.
DAVIES: Geoff Nunberg is a linguist who teaches at the University of California, Berkeley School of Information. Coming up, jazz critic Kevin Whitehead reviews some recently released Thad Jones/Mel Lewis Orchestra recordings35 from 1966 at the Village Vanguard. This is FRESH AIR.
点击收听单词发音
1 elimination | |
n.排除,消除,消灭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 vowel | |
n.元音;元音字母 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 vowels | |
n.元音,元音字母( vowel的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 linguist | |
n.语言学家;精通数种外国语言者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 controversies | |
争论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 chaotic | |
adj.混沌的,一片混乱的,一团糟的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 linguistic | |
adj.语言的,语言学的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 lathers | |
n.肥皂泡( lather的名词复数 );紧张;激动;(马的)汗沫v.(指肥皂)形成泡沫( lather的第三人称单数 );用皂沫覆盖;狠狠地打 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 barricades | |
路障,障碍物( barricade的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 minor | |
adj.较小(少)的,较次要的;n.辅修学科;vi.辅修 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 distinctive | |
adj.特别的,有特色的,与众不同的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 obliteration | |
n.涂去,删除;管腔闭合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 socialist | |
n.社会主义者;adj.社会主义的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 proponents | |
n.(某事业、理论等的)支持者,拥护者( proponent的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 invoked | |
v.援引( invoke的过去式和过去分词 );行使(权利等);祈求救助;恳求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 vestige | |
n.痕迹,遗迹,残余 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 royalty | |
n.皇家,皇族 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 orthography | |
n.拼字法,拼字式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 controversy | |
n.争论,辩论,争吵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 symbolic | |
adj.象征性的,符号的,象征主义的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 agitating | |
搅动( agitate的现在分词 ); 激怒; 使焦虑不安; (尤指为法律、社会状况的改变而)激烈争论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 legacy | |
n.遗产,遗赠;先人(或过去)留下的东西 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 etymologies | |
n.词源学,词源说明( etymology的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 concoction | |
n.调配(物);谎言 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 perverse | |
adj.刚愎的;坚持错误的,行为反常的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 cove | |
n.小海湾,小峡谷 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 versus | |
prep.以…为对手,对;与…相比之下 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 purely | |
adv.纯粹地,完全地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 cultivation | |
n.耕作,培养,栽培(法),养成 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 consolation | |
n.安慰,慰问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 deters | |
v.阻止,制止( deter的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 permanently | |
adv.永恒地,永久地,固定不变地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 corrupted | |
(使)败坏( corrupt的过去式和过去分词 ); (使)腐化; 引起(计算机文件等的)错误; 破坏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 unreasonable | |
adj.不讲道理的,不合情理的,过度的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 recordings | |
n.记录( recording的名词复数 );录音;录像;唱片 | |
参考例句: |
|
|