Reform of the German spelling from 1996 / Pros and Cons

This article sums up arguments that were put forward in the public debate for and against the reform of German spelling in 1996 .

Objectives of the reform

Simplify learning to write

The declared aim of the spelling reform was to make writing and learning to write easier. Whether the reformed rules actually meet this requirement is a matter of dispute. The modifications of rules after 1996, reactions to content-related criticism and the accusation of insufficient democratic legitimation of the reform are lamented as a source of additional uncertainty. Critics also claim that readability has suffered from the reform. It is much more important than a - possibly easier - writability.

Breaking up the Duden privilege

The then chairman of the Intergovernmental Commission for German Spelling , Karl Blüml , who also works for the “ Austrian Dictionary ”, said in 1998: “The aim of the reform was not the innovations. The aim was to bring the spelling regulation back from the competence of a German private publisher to the state competence and to make learning to spell easier. "

Criticism of the reform

Critics accuse the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education that the composition of the commission did not serve the matter in that it included numerous experts who are known in their field for isolated and unusual opinions.

Günther Drosdowski , the former head of the Duden editorial team, wrote in a letter to Theodor Ickler in 1996 : “In the spelling commission and in the working groups, conditions similar to mafia prevailed. Some reformers had no idea about the writing of the language and the function of the spelling for the linguistic community, anyway not about the grammar, without which the rules of orthography are simply not possible. "," The occupation alone is a bully.

At the beginning of 2003 it was pointed out in the Süddeutsche Zeitung that some members of the commission had an economic interest in the spelling reform.

In addition, politicians were too hastily carried away because Bertelsmann Verlag had already created facts by printing the edition before the Vienna Agreement was signed. In addition, politicians have broken the promise that the reform will be withdrawn as soon as the spelling reform in a federal state is overturned by referendum .

Arguments for the 1996 spelling reform

The Hessian Minister of Education Karin Wolff published the following arguments in September 2004 as "10 good reasons for the spelling reform":

Simplicity of spelling
Old spelling - many exceptions undermine the rules
New spelling - better learnability and manageability
The root principle is consolidated
New s-spelling
No deletion when three consonants meet
Separate writing is regulated
Capitalization of nouns is strengthened
Lower case letters for fixed connections between adjective and noun are specified
Separation according to spoken syllables

A critical examination of these arguments by Thomas Paulwitz can be found on the pages of Deutsche Sprachwelt . Point 9 as well as the separation of individual letters according to point 10 have become obsolete since the revision of the reform rules by the Council for German Spelling in 2006.

Arguments against the 1996 spelling reform

Description versus prescription: The reform critics are against the language standardization or prescription , i. H. against the arbitrary and undemocratic intervention of the reformers in the spelling and thus in the natural development of language. They demand that the previous method of description be retained , i. H. a differentiated description of the use of language and writing (custom). On the other hand, the reform releases many spellings by converting previous must-have rules into can-do rules, but this also has disadvantages for lexicography , research and learning time for teachers. Proponents of reform often argue against the fact that there was hardly such a natural development of language as a result of government regulations.; In addition, the advocates of the description fail to recognize that spelling as such means for each individual first of all prescription, since it prescribes a spelling for every word. Learning to spell is also part of individual emancipation. But this prescription is all the more burdensome, the more complicated the rules are and the greater the number of prescribed exceptions.

Creating additional ambiguity: Some previously unambiguous sentences are now syntactically or semantically ambiguous as long as they are only written in writing. Whoever reads it out must first decide on one of the meanings and then emphasize it accordingly. “Someone has to struggle, the writer or the reader,” says Wolf Schneider .

Break with pronunciation rules or change in pronunciation

The spoken language is the original, so it has priority; Scripture is supposed to represent them, so it has a serving function. The reform disregards this priority:

"Placing" was spoken with a long a; should one now speak "placements" with a short a because of the "tz"?
Should I now speak the surname “Saß” (from “Sachse” or “Sasse”, at least for short) with a long “a”?
Shall I stop singing "Rough winds blow from the north"?
Should I now speak the middle vowel in elaborate differently than before (and unchanged in agile )?

Break with grammar

Some changes misunderstand the part of speech:

In “last night”, “evening” is an adverb of the time, shortened for “evening”. It can no longer be represented grammatically in capital letters.
In “I am to blame”, “guilty” is an adjective shortened for “guilty”. It can no longer be represented grammatically in capital letters.

Cultural continuity: Every spelling reform creates - in addition to the ravages of time and not in the same way - distance between us and our cultural heritage: To the generation that grew up with the spelling reform, old books will appear even older than they do for stylistic and content-related reasons, because of the way they are written will appear antiquated. Although new editions in new spelling solve this problem, create it but a new, larger if expressive nuances changed or eliminated (eg. Greyish - horrible ). Proponents of reform counter that many of the classics are no longer read in the original, as they were already adapted once the rules were introduced in 1902. The changes at that time were far more drastic ( do - do , be - be ) and still have not distorted classical works.

Biographical continuity

A spelling reform means an intervention in the relationship of a reader to his language. The writer Reiner Kunze speaks of the aura of words :

“The word has an aura that consists of its typeface, its sound and the associations that it evokes in us, and the more important and common a word is, the more intense and formative this aura is. Whoever destroys them destroys something in us, he touches the fundus of our unconscious. So if you are constantly confronted with words whose aura is destroyed because they are cut up ("largely" instead of "largely"), because they sound different as they are now written ("think differently" instead of "think differently") or because you gave them a pack of three "s" and then pulled in a spreader bar ("river sink"), then the perception of this destruction is always a microtrauma, a tiny psychological lesion, which in the long term either leads to language desensitization, Dulling and resignation or leading to increasingly unfriendly feelings towards those who caused all this without need. "

In a similar sense, Wittgenstein and Grillparzer expressed their views on earlier spelling reforms .; After the reform of the reform, part of Kunze's criticism no longer applies.; What Kunze calls an aura, however, ranges from rules that are inadequately conveyed in normal school lessons (German for Germans) to individual associations. These individual associations with traditional spellings do not necessarily have to be positive. For example, the spelling of the f-sound as ph in words of Greek origin can also be experienced as a classical fuss.
Aesthetic arguments: An old spelling was simply more beautiful than a new one. This argument was used in 1901 against the omission of the h in words such as B. Breath , home , foolishly stated; In 1996 it was primarily directed against the ss - ß re-regulation, the tripling of consonants in front of vowels, e.g. B. in shipping (although triple consonants were the rule even before the reform, e.g. color-free ), the now more frequent option of replacing ph by f and against individual changes from e to ä (e.g. stems and ribbons ).

German as a foreign language

The interest in choosing German as a foreign language has demonstrably not suffered. In other European countries there were hardly any problems with the introduction of the new spelling in language lessons. Proponents of reform counter the argument that the spelling reform was not democratically legitimized by saying that in 1901 the so-called old spelling was enacted by decree and was therefore not introduced more democratically than the new one. Critics counter that the understanding of democracy is certainly different today than it was during the imperial era.

Lack of empiricism: The definition of rules for the spelling of words is ideologically determining for spelling. It can be observed that there is often a gap between correct spelling and empirical spelling. Representatives of an empirically proceeding linguistics proceed according to the motto "The majority spelling determines the rules". From this point of view, spelling rules determined by specialist committees are democratically inadequately legitimized because they artificially channel the lively flow of cultural development in a language. Casuistically, the spelling reform of 1996 narrowed the gap between the set of rules and majority spelling by simplifying the rules in the relevant cases of doubt. However, this does not mean that the rule-based approach has been fundamentally questioned. It should be noted that the critique of empiricism clearly distinguishes itself from the traditionalist critique of the spelling reform, because its criticism also and especially hits the advocates of traditional spelling. Strict advocates of empiricism only permit reforms based on a change in the public use of language. So they see no objective reasons to argue against a spelling like "Renate's Imbiss" if it has prevailed in practical use. From this point of view, the role of a spelling reform is a continuous adaptation of the regulations to general linguistic usage, but not the effect on linguistic usage by establishing reforms. So empiricists lay the foundation (basis?) On the principle of normative individualism .

Withdrawal of economically justified forms: One point criticized by linguistics is the abandonment of forms that were formed during decades of writing use for reasons of writing and reading economy, e.g. avoiding consonant clusters in (conventional): shipping or bed sheet , the use of the ß as an economic ss- Ligature . This is seen as a step backwards behind developments that have resulted from the probation in linguistic usage. Proponents of the reform counter that a logical word formation is economically advantageous in writing and the clear recognisability of the pronunciation of ss and ß increases the economics of reading (example: Strass (short a) but street (long a)).

Prescription of etymologically incorrect spellings: For some words, with reference to a folk etymological derivation, a new spelling was introduced (example “ clumsy ”) and at the same time the etymologically correct spelling was declared incorrect. Using the example of “clumsy”, it can be countered that the folk etymology (“crazy” and “blow with a broad subject”) supports the understanding of the word, while knowledge of the Hungarian origin of the word is meaningless for its understanding and use.

Bad readability: While making writing easier was an express goal of the reform, improvements and deteriorations were accepted for legibility . In the opinion of critics, the readability is worsened by the reformed spelling, which is probably true when changing from “ß” to “ss” in “measurement result” , but with the resulting triple s in grievance or river sink it is only a matter of habit.

To fundamental decisions

Basic decision against a consistently etymologically justified spelling

The dispute over the direction between etymologically based and phonetically derivable spelling runs through the entire history of German spelling .

The folk etymological spelling propagated by Gerhard Augst provoked a particular lack of understanding among many opponents of reform , according to which it is not the actual etymology of a word that is decisive for its spelling, but the fact that, in Augst's opinion, the "people" see it as belonging to a word family. New are z. For example, the spellings Stängel (since this noun belongs to the word family von Stange in terms of linguistic history ), Schnäuzen (since this verb is related to Schnauze via Old Norse ), but also Quäntchen , because it is commonly associated with Quantum , although it is not from Quantum , but comes from the old German unit of measurement Quent . Other example words are "einbleuen", which, in contradiction to the origin, is reformed to "blue" (ie "blued") instead of "bleuen" (for "to beat"), "lambed", which is traced back to "lamb" and " Clumsy ", which is associated with" great ". In particular, it was criticized that the spellings were normatively defined as incorrect according to the actual etymology . According to opponents of reform, this robs some words of their etymology.

Approval of alternative spellings

There have always been spelling questions that could not be clearly answered on the basis of the official rules (e.g. " due to , (now often :) due ") and where the writer was free to choose one of the possible ones as he saw fit To decide writings. In the Reformed spelling, however, there are explicitly many cases in which alternative spellings are available (in particular for the spelling of foreign words, upper and lower case, hyphenated and combined letters, hyphenated spelling, punctuation and the separation at the end of the word). The revision of the reformed spelling has increased the number of permissible alternatives.

Some critics see this as a loss of uniformity in the written language. On the other hand, of all the individual regulations of the spelling reform, the most violent criticism is the standardization of separate and combined spelling , which, in the opinion of the critics, means a loss of expressive possibilities.

However, alternative writers also give democratic means in hand to decide on the most sensible spelling within a transitional period by becoming naturalized over time. The alternatives give the writer the chance to replace less good spellings with better ones. Whether he accepts them is up to him. In addition, it is questionable whether an exact specification is even necessary as long as all variants are clear and understandable for everyone.

Theodor Ickler , one of the most prominent critics of the spelling reform, points out that the old spelling allowed far more alternative spellings than most writers were aware of:

What grammar allows, orthography cannot forbid. That is the core principle of a proper Duden exegesis. […] Once attentive, one discovers that almost all Duden rules are optional provisions that open up scope. [...] Almost all concerns that have been raised against contradictions and hair-splitting of the Duden can be eliminated according to the principle of benevolent interpretation.

This also applies after the spelling reform. The spelling reform contains rules and word lists. The word lists cannot be complete. If in doubt, they are supplemented by rules. For example, the first Duden editions after the reform contained the entry “Science fiction”. According to the rules, however, you can also write correctly: “Science fiction”, although it was not in the specified dictionary. The word lists meanwhile specify “science fiction” as the main variant. The same is the case with the comma rules. They indicate where a comma should be and where none should be. With a benevolent interpretation, you can continue to use commas to make the sentence structure easier to understand, i.e. even where it is no longer required according to the reformed rules.

Regarding individual regulations

Sounds and letters

The change in phonetic-letter assignments introduced numerous changes or alternatives. Some of these were accepted more, some less.

Ss-ß spelling and triple letters

Spelling reformed street sign in Aachen

The change in the spelling of ß and ss according to Heysean s spelling has brought about the most obvious change in the typeface of all parts of the spelling reform; however, it is also the only rule that teachers consistently correct and that is (not only) applied consistently by proponents of the spelling reform. In addition to the content-related criticism of the new regulation, there is a protest against the change in the usual typeface itself.

The old motto: "ss in the end only brings annoyance" is abolished. According to the new regulation, ss always stands where ß was previously after a short vowel, ß itself only comes after a long vowel. ss is now used wherever other doubly represented consonants are needed ( eat, eat, like meet, meet ). However, there are still exceptions, such as Understanding and Bus . Continues to apply, as with other consonants, the root principle: the load , but you let (of leave ), analogous to the edge but I knew (from know ).

The ss-ß spelling has become one of the main sources of error for users of the spelling reformed rules (see Harald Marx : Spelling performance before and after the spelling reform: what changes in elementary school children? ): The new explanation only starts phonologically and thus leads to misspellings like "understanding". The choice - and thus the uncertainty - of the writer has also been increased. Where there used to be a choice between two spellings at the end of a word (s or ß: bus - kiss), now it is important to distinguish between three spellings (s, ss or ß: las - bass - measure). The chance hit rate is reduced from 50% to 33%, especially since, depending on the dialect , sociolect or idiolect, long and short vowels cannot be accurately distinguished (is that short or long?). The main problems that the rule is supposed to eliminate remain: one still has to distinguish between this and that , as well as with is and eats . On the contrary, the problem is exacerbated here because the likelihood of confusion is greater because the word images are now even more similar.

One of the most important functions of ß is also misunderstood and destroyed: the marking of the syllable fugue and especially the word fugue. Words like abuse have not only been criticized because some believe they lack aesthetics, they are also harder to read. Writing the measurement result instead of the measurement result forces the reader to read the word twice, because the first reading is automatically the measurement result . Process organization is a similar example . However, it can be countered that words are never read individually, but always in groups, cf. also large producers or large producers . This example also shows that ß by no means clearly marks the syllable fugue even after traditional spelling (especially before vowels). Furthermore, the syllable fugue is not specifically displayed for the other consonants ( disadvantage , disadvantage ; printed product ). In addition, even in traditional spelling, the meaning of many words can only be deduced from the context (as with "castle" / "castle"). In any case, Adelung's s notation avoids the poorly legible triple “s” at word joints (see, for example, vernier calipers ) that often occurs in Heysean s notation . However, the new spelling allows hyphens for better readability ( measurement result ).

Opponents of the reform mean that the SS as preventing the separation is omitted as ss and thereby now computer programs Mes-sergebnis instead sense result disconnect. Proponents believe that this only shows that the programs need to be improved - also because the usual spelling in Switzerland does not generally use ß and thus the problem exists across the reforms.

Since the use of ss and ß has been determined according to the new regulation, more words or word forms (due to high-level phoneme variations recognized ) no longer have a clear spelling. The word form Geschoss (nominative, singular), for example, may also be written as “Geschoss” in Reformed spelling in southern Germany and Austria due to a different pronunciation. However, there are also variants of other word forms of this word in traditional spelling: e.g. B. "Storeys" and "Storeys". A new addition is the now recognized variation “die Mass Bier” next to “die Maß Bier”.

For foreigners who only learn German as a foreign language, the three-letter problem is less important; on the other hand, the new regulation has the essential advantage that one recognizes from the spelling that z. For example, the a must be pronounced short in mass , but long in beer mug and that it logically means “measure”, “the measuring process” or “the measured variable”, but z. B. "the angle measure". The ß as an exceptional German letter has a real function here, which you can do without if you replace ß with ss throughout, as in Switzerland .

A typical reading error that occurs in German lessons for foreigners occurs with the word “bit”, which is clearly read as “bit” in Adelung's spelling, but always a bit straight away in Hey's spelling .

Triple spelling using the example of fff

According to the old spelling: If a vowel follows , three identical consonants become two, if another consonant follows , all three identical consonants are retained.

Examples: (old) shipping - (new) shipping , or (old) oxygen factory - (new) oxygen factory.

The oxygen bottle was also written with three fs using the old spelling .

According to the critics, there is now increased consonant accumulation, since three consonants always have to be written. According to the new spelling, it is recommended in difficult cases to use hyphens to make it clear where the words come together.

But the same applies to vowels: Elephant seal reads easier than elephant seal . But that was already the case with the old spelling.

Umlaut spelling to strengthen the stem principle

The change from e to ä in individual words is intended to reinforce the stem principle and thus make spellings derivable. This was taken into account in many cases even before the reform, but the reformers tried to achieve further standardization in order to reduce exceptional cases. However, they have only unsystematically shifted fault lines, but not eliminated them: spend versus time- consuming and effort, but replace unchanged , replaceable and irreplaceable versus replacement.

Against the change of e in like that in some special cases, the distinctness of a word pair is canceled is argued: complex of expend over -consuming for on the wall (see manoeuvrable , necessary , internally , heart ), greulich of cruel to distinguish grayish of gray . Proponents of reform point out that these cases are few in number and often seem constructed: The meaning of elaborate is so rare on the wall that the dictionary does not know this word, and grayish (of gray ) is only an accepted subsidiary form grayish . It is also criticized that the root principle is not consistently applied to all parts of speech: parents , which can be traced back to old , were not changed to older .

More criticism is directed particularly to cases in which a folk etymology legitimized (or the reform only suggest) is ( sheepish about lamb , beat into of blue , etc.).

Proponents counter that it is irrelevant for the learnability whether the spelling is based on historically correct etymology (above: for the fundamental decision against a consistently etymologically based spelling). You see in this an adaptation to the language usage and thus a simplification.

Foreign words

Some welcomed the possibility of writing endings like -graphie as -grafie from now on. In the opinion of the reform proponents, this will facilitate the flow of reading. However, mixed forms of etymological and Germanized spelling are objected to: orthography with th , but without ph .

Another objection raised by opponents is that the largely phonetic spelling of foreign words and thus the increase in the distance between the original and German word will further reduce the level of education. Proponents of reform assume that such criticisms can essentially be described as social pessimism that manifests itself only in linguistic details, but actually has nothing to do with the language and its writing.

The newly introduced dependency of noun stems on verb stems (actually derived from them) increases the difference to the forms of origin ( flop instead of previously flop because of flop , desktop instead of previously desktop because of desktop , and so on) and can cause uncertainties: stop table , but " STOP ”panel .

In principle, it is to be welcomed that it cannot be up to the German language to always write all foreign words as they are in the donor language. In addition, there have been examples of successful orthographic Germanization for a long time, cf. Plush from french. peluche , office from French Bureau , shock from French choc u. Ä. The reform therefore continues this line with much-used words.

On the other hand, one can argue that the German language is saying goodbye to the association of other Western European languages such as French and English, both of which also know the principle of the etymological spelling of foreign words. Other European languages, however, adapt foreign words to a much greater extent orthographically - for example Italian (cf. dittongo “diphthong”, ritmo “rhythm”, filosofo “philosopher” etc.) or Spanish (cf. quiosco “kiosk”, dólar “dollar”, güisqui “ Whiskey ”etc.), and even in French it is called fantôme as opposed to the German Phantom (although this is of French origin).

Large and lower case

The spelling reform promotes the capitalization of many words:

with reference to , related to (formerly: related to , related to )
in no time , in retrospect (previously: in no time , in retrospect )
tonight , but: this morning (also: this morning ; earlier: this evening , this morning )
everything else , everything else (previously: everything else , everything else )

In the opinion of the reform opponents, serious grammatical errors occurred in many cases or distinctions between meanings were lost:

At night in tonight if it were not a noun, it would legitimize a capitalization. Proponents argue that it is a shortened spelling of tonight . Opponents argue as follows:
- It is a simplified version from this evening.
- Otherwise, an adverb before a noun does not appear in German and requires an innovation in grammar. "The capitalization of the times of day (yesterday evening) cannot be grammatically constructed."
- The new spelling "tonight" obviously tempts you to do so, e.g. B. also to write “Saturday evening”; but that is still wrong.

In the case of the counterpart this morning , yesterday morning , the consistent capitalization of the time of day causes a lack of clarity according to the old spelling; Morning capitalized clearly means the morning , tomorrow lowercase clearly means the day after it was said or written .

To be sorry (to inflict suffering), so the reform opponents, is something other than to be sorry (to arouse pity). The reformers believed in 2004 that they had eliminated this problem in a revision of the reform by allowing not only to feel sorry but also to feel sorry . However, according to opponents of the reform, this makes the problem worse, because to be sorry can still be written for to feel pity , and the ambiguity remains. This and the additional sorry for 2004 (which made the rules even more arbitrary) undermine the writer's feeling for language. Compare with the English "I am sorry" (I'm sorry), not "I have sorry", so the "sorry" is purely adjectival. This can also be seen in the increase in “I'm very sorry”, because nobody would seriously write “I'm very sorry”, which would be analogous to “I drive a lot”. According to the reformers, the spelling “I'm sorry” was initially intended to be the only valid one, but since 2006 it has been considered incorrect again.

To be right (give a correct opinion), the word “right” is wrongly viewed as a faded noun, since the word “right” functions as an adverb, e.g. B. recognize that the negative is: “not right” instead of “not right”; Likewise, a sentence like “completely right” is not “completely right” (analogous to “completely driving a car”). Compare also English “I am right” - “I am right”, ie purely adjectival use of “right” in the sense of “right”. The different choices of the verb must not be brushed off the table. And the negation with not excludes that instead of an adverb an object follows: “I don't want to eat butter” is just as possible as “I don't want to eat butter.” In the first case, eat butter is negated, in the second case only butter .

Be needy : Gorch Fock's saying , "Seafaring is necessary", is an adverbial use of "need" in the sense of "necessary". “Seafaring is need” has a different meaning.

Furthermore / otherwise / in general / in essence : These phrases are just other spellings for “continue” or “by the way” or “general”. The capitalization of such filler words distracts from the actual nouns of the sentence, and one expects more in general , whereby a newspaper such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine would be meant.

with the old : Here it is suggested that either Siegfried Lowitz from the ZDF crime series "Der Alte" is meant or even Jurgen Prochnow as the captain of a U- boat . A wife could also speak of her husband. What is meant is simply: "old", that is, a purely adjectival meaning.

For now: One could wrongly assume that it is ARD , but what is meant is merely a paraphrase of “first” or “first”.

The capitalization in fixed connections has only been changed selectively, ad hoc. "If the distinction between literal, figurative and idiomatic use cannot be clearly made, then upper and lower case cannot be put into clear rules."

Separate and combined writing

The separate and combined spelling was not officially regulated so far, but was based on individual decisions and dictionary entries by the Duden editorial team, which only later tried to systematize them. In the case of literal usage, the following should tend to be written separately, in the case of transferred usage or in the case of “specific lexicalised meaning”: The visitors stopped (= continued to stand ), but the visitors stopped (= stopped).

In the opinion of the reformers, this regulation was confusing, complicated and unsystematic, as, for example, in contrast to the "rule-compliant" stay seated (= on a chair) / stay seated (= not moved) there were words that always had to be separated or written together - so wrote For example , you always lie down together (regardless of whether you lie on a lounger or whether something is left lying there [= is forgotten]), while going bathing was always written separately (regardless of whether you go swimming in a lake or with a thing go swimming [= fails]).

The example of driving a car in competition with cycling is almost always given as an example of the arbitrariness of the previous regulation . Opponents of reform claim that this example is based on a misunderstanding: If "real Duden exegesis" [Ickler] you have the fact that only cycling but do not drive a car its own dictionary entry had no means have to conclude that you do not even depending on the context motoring and cycling drive was entitled to write. In fact, before the reform, the Duden had an entry that highlighted the inconsistency but did not remedy it; under the keyword car it was prescribed: “(↑ R 207 :) drive a car; I drove a car; (↑ R 32 :) Auto and cycling, but: cycling and driving "(quoted from the 19th edition, 1986). (See above: for the basic decision for the approval of alternative spellings.)

Consequences of a semantic nature

Due to the new regulation, a difference in meaning could often no longer be made with the help of separate and combined spelling; In these cases, the context alone provides information on how the phrase is to be understood. Of all the decisions on the spelling reform, this has probably drawn the most criticism.

Critics cite numerous cases in which, according to the earlier spelling, the separate and the combined variant had different meanings: stay seated (do not move ), but: stay seated (do not get up); severely damaged , but: severely damaged ; develop further (continuous development) or develop further (progress). In the first form of the new rules, the separate writing of previously written combinations of adverb and verb or participle was compulsory: stay seated , badly damaged and develop further . In the meantime, the combination has also been approved as a variant: stay seated , severely damaged and develop further .

The reform of the reform responded to criticism that the abolition of different spellings led to misunderstandings when reading and to a loss of expression when writing.

Reform proponents argue that the meaning arises from the context. In the present and the past tense you can get along without distinguishing between separate and combined spelling: he / he stayed / stayed seated .

Consequences for the spoken language

Proponents of reform continue to argue that even in spoken language there is no difference between separate and combined spelling. However, this argument is not always understandable for all native speakers, as some of them take short pauses in speaking when spelling separately. Also, in some cases there may very well be a difference in emphasis, e.g. B. he did the job (badly) vs. he did the job BAD (badly) . The combination of “badmouthing” and “glossing over” was therefore retained in the reform. By the sentence this problem is well known vs. this problem is well known (well known) and similar connections with the adverb “well” bring the traditional spelling together on the one hand a clarification, but is or was subtle; “Well” in the meaning “good” or “very” should be written together with the participle as well as “good”, “very” and as a negation “little” but not. In the above example SCHWERbeschädigt , the combined noun “Schwerbeschädigte” (person with officially recognized disability) was retained and reintroduced in this meaning as an adjective.

To the extent that opponents of reform recognize that the reformed rules are defensible from a phonetic point of view, they are left with the line of argument that the written language is not simply a copy of the spoken language, but a system in its own right: distinctions that cannot be heard in the spoken language, could be useful in the written language, as they contribute to better and faster understanding of the text and can increase reading speed. This applies particularly to the emphasis:

Whoever reads out must first deduce the meaning from the context and then determine the accentuation. “Someone has to struggle, the writer or the reader,” says Wolf Schneider .
The new spellings “with” and “at present” violate the rule that compounds are emphasized on the first component. (They are also not justified in Section 39 of the regulation, and the components can still be written separately.)

The rules for separate and combined spelling have been substantially revised by the German Spelling Council in 2006, and appropriate changes are recommended. The spelling is made dependent, for example, on the use of accents.

Interpretation of the official regulation in important dictionaries

Theodor Ickler compares the new dictionary from the Wahrig- Verlag and the Duden (publication date February 2, 2006), finds that “the two most important dictionaries differ blatantly” and “completely absurd (... e.g. a semi-automatic compilation in the Duden ( and seventeen other examples) with an emphasis on the first syllable and the separately written phrase semi-automatically with an emphasis on (the second ...). In the info box it is very decently referred to as 'participle'. (...) All in all, the Wahrig (...) documents the school orthography recently decreed by the ministers of culture quite reliably . It does not give German linguistics a good report (...). New oddities immediately cloud the picture again. "

Here, too, when weighing up the arguments, the external perspective of the "student" can be contrasted: From the school's point of view, it is of course gratifying and very effective if all words are always separated, since this greatly reduces the number of errors to be chalked up while However, a reader must always first deduce the correct stress from the context, e.g. "Sing bad" as versus "whitewash" versus "whitewash". Not only the foreign language speaker recognizes the correct accentuation from the naturalized spelling.

Hyphenated spelling

In this point, the claim of the reform to “adapt the regulation of German spelling to today's requirements” is comparatively easy to understand: The increasing complexity of today's living conditions always brings with it new, often multi-part words. The ability to divide compound words into units of meaning (or: units of meaning ) with a hyphen can make reading easier if used sensibly. However, in some cases (e.g. with ambiguous words) a hyphen can also be used in traditional spelling (printed product, but printer certificate).

Opponents of reform are of the opinion that it is incomprehensible that a hyphen no longer has to be used when three vowels appear in a compound. Before the reform it was only called “coffee substitute”. After the reform, this word can also be written as “coffee substitute”. The syllable boundary or speaking pause in the middle of the "e" cannot be recognized immediately. Proponents of reform counter that this is only an extension of the possibilities. In fact, Dreifach-e cannot be misunderstood, but always read as “… ee-e…”, since no German word begins with a double e. The same applies to all triple consonants.

Opponents of the reform also criticize the fact that in practice, paradoxically, the use of the hyphen has rather decreased than increased, especially since the spelling reform: Many nouns consisting of two parts (e.g. tomato soup ), which are spelled together in traditional spelling, are now separated, but incorrectly written without a hyphen (e.g. tomato soup instead of tomato soup ). In general, however, this development has been observed for some time and is attributed to the Anglicization rather than the new hyphen rule.

punctuation

The relaxed commas of the spelling-reformed spelling simplifies writing according to proponents, but makes reading more difficult according to opponents, since commas are often helpful for recognizing the formal structure of sentences. This applies in particular to the nested sentences that are relatively common in the German language, but also to the concatenation of main clauses with “and” or “or”. In most cases, the setting of commas is not explicitly forbidden, but is left to the writer, but one or the other publisher has excessively reduced the use of commas, possibly to demonstrate progressiveness.

If you leave out commas, there are ambiguities or (due to wrong interposition ) problems in reading flow:

The teacher advised the student not to contradict.
The three of them sat at the table and ate a chicken and the mother came later.

In such cases, the comma is used e.g. B. recommended by the Duden editorial team.

A completely new category of comma errors arises from the (erroneous) assumption that every comma before “and” and “or” (between main clauses) has become optional through the reform. At this point, however, the comma is still required if the preceding sentence ends with a subordinate clause (or another comma-delimited insert).

In the last revision of the reform (2006), many commas (for extended infinitives) were prescribed again, which could (and were) be left out between 1996 and 2006. This leads to a multitude of literature that:

dates from 1996 to 2006 and contains formal errors according to today's rules or
which is newer than 2006 but ignores the current rules.

Word separation

There have been very few changes to the word breakings. Most noticeable are the elimination of the st separation ban (“Never separate st, because it hurts him!”) And the innovation at ck. The former had to do with the setting of the lead letters in the print shop, where there was a single letter for "st". So you can now separate “Instance”, “Instruction” or “Distillation”. The word separation according to word components, ie "instance", is still allowed. But this does not mean that st now has to be separated at every point where it occurs. “Wall stone” will continue to be separated “wall stone” and not “wall stone”. Such separations occurred frequently after the spelling reform, but are incorrect. A new phenomenon is that now permissible but etymologically incorrect separations such as “diagnosis” and “construction” instead of the etymological “diagnosis” and “construction” clearly show whether the writer speaks Greek or Latin Has.

With the new regulation for the separation of words with "ck", an exception regulation should be abolished. If a word is written with “ck” (such as “hoe”), it used to be replaced by “kk” when hyphenating: “Hak-ke”. According to the new spelling, "Ha-cke" is now correct. This was done in alignment with the separation in "ch". For example, "Sa-che" is separated after the old and new spelling before the "ch".

Critics, on the other hand, believe that a new exception has been created, because "ck", unlike "ch", is a double consonant and not a digraph. "Ck" is now the only double consonant in German that is not separated, and that creates a reading obstacle. The fact that "ck" is added to the following syllable creates an open syllable (a syllable that ends in a vowel). Vowels in such syllables are pronounced long according to German pronunciation rules. But vowels before ck are pronounced briefly (like all vowels before double consonants). However, examples like “Sa-che” show that vowels in such syllables are very short pronounced. The introduction of a concept such as Digraph to explain the separation rules would also complicate and not simplify the set of rules.

The new rules generally allow separating according to spoken syllables. In addition to the old division “helicopter”, the division “helicopter” is now also permissible, as well as “surgeon” now also “chirurg”. This also applies to German words: "Her-aus" can now also be separated from "he-raus", "vor-aus" and "vor-raus". Critics attribute the increased occurrence of the wrong spelling "in advance" to the new regulation of the separation. A purely mechanical separation option was also used after the spelling reform of 1996: The last consonant was placed on the new line (“Konstruktion”, “zent-ral”). This rule was revised in 2006. Separations that distort the meaning (except for foreign words, see above) are no longer permitted, as is the case with the separation of word joints. Example: Walduhu is separated from “Walduhu”, but not “Wal-duhu”. Separations such as “fulfillment of a wish” or “wish”, which would be possible with a purely mechanical separation, are not permitted.

It was now permitted to separate individual letters, such as "über". Critics argue that on the one hand these separations are unnecessary, on the other hand this rule in combinations leads to incomprehensible structures such as "Ruma-roma". This regulation was withdrawn again in 2006 on the proposal of the Council for German Spelling.

Writing practice

In actual spelling, a kind of compromise between old and new spelling seems to have prevailed: ss versus ß according to Heyse, word separation or spelling also according to the valid rules, but often in the permitted traditional variant.

literature

German. A language is corrupted . Ed .: Bavarian Academy of Fine Arts and German Language Research Group. Contributions by Reiner Kunze, Herbert Rosendorfer, Albert von Schirnding, Hans Krieger, Peter Horst Neumann and Wolfgang Illauer. Drawings: Paul Flora. Oreos Verlag, Waakirchen 2003, ISBN 978-3-923657-74-2 , ISBN 3-923657-74-9 .
Theodor Ickler : The so-called spelling reform - A shield bourgeois prank (PDF; 750 kB). Leibniz-Verlag, St. Goar 1997, ISBN 3-931155-09-9 .
Theodor Ickler: Linguistic report (PDF; 117 kB). May 5, 2004.
Florian Kranz: A boat trip with three f. Positive about the spelling reform . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2002.
Hans-Werner Eroms, Horst Haider Munske (Hrsg.): The spelling reform - pros and cons . Erich-Schmidt-Verlag, Berlin 1997, ISBN 3-503-03786-1 (264 pages).

Web links

Web links against it

Web links for it

Individual evidence

↑ Peter Gallmann, Horst Sitta: Handbuch spelling (PDF; 169 kB), 1996, p. 16.

^ Theodor Ickler : The so-called spelling reform - A shield bourgeois prank (PDF; 750 kB). Leibniz-Verlag, St. Goar 1997, ISBN 3-931155-09-9 , p. 67.

↑ Der Standard , Vienna, January 31 / February 1, 1998, p. 13.

^ Theodor Ickler : Regulatory power. Background of the spelling reform. (PDF; 1.9 MB) Leibniz-Verlag, St. Goar 2004, ISBN 3-931155-18-8 , p. 177.

^ Letter from Günther Drosdowski to Theodor Ickler, Mannheim, November 10, 1996, [1] .

↑ Karin Wolff: Yes to the spelling reform ( memento of the original from July 18, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2

↑ Thomas Paulwitz: Ten lazy reasons for the spelling reform. In: Deutsche Sprachwelt , August 19, 2004.

↑ Quoted from Ursula Kals in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of October 23, 2004, page 53

↑ Reiner Kunze The Aura of Words: Memorandum on the spelling reform , new edition with interim balance, Radius, Stuttgart 2004, ISBN 3-87173-303-2

^ Theodor Ickler : Regulatory power. Background of the spelling reform. (PDF; 1.9 MB) Leibniz-Verlag, St. Goar 2004, ISBN 3-931155-18-8 , p. 108 ff., 227 ff.

^ Theodor Ickler : The so-called spelling reform - A shield bourgeois prank (PDF; 750 kB). Leibniz-Verlag, St. Goar 1997, ISBN 3-931155-09-9 , pp. 14-16.

^ Theodor Ickler : Regulatory power. Background to the spelling reform (PDF; 1.9 MB). Leibniz-Verlag, St. Goar 2004, ISBN 3-931155-18-8 , pp. 87, 108, 175, 210, 226-238, 246.

↑ Wolfgang Denk: 10 years of spelling reform. Considerations for a cost-benefit analysis ( Memento of February 21, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 1.1 MB) p. 49.

↑ Hannes Hintermeier : Secret thing German . In: FAZ , August 22, 2004.

^ Theodor Ickler : The so-called spelling reform - a shield bourgeois prank. (PDF; 750 kB) Leibniz-Verlag, St. Goar 1997, ISBN 3-931155-09-9 , pp. 20-23.

↑ Duden , 19th edition, 1986.

^ Theodor Ickler : diversionary maneuvers.

↑ Fetish of the norm. In: FAZ , November 14, 1997, p. 41.

^ ^A ^b Theodor Ickler : The so-called spelling reform - a shield bourgeois prank. (PDF; 750 kB) Leibniz-Verlag, St. Goar 1997, ISBN 3-931155-09-9 , p. 19.

↑ ^a ^b Theodor Ickler in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of January 12, 2017, page 6

↑ "Every speaker, every writer can put together existing words anew and seamlessly [...], from 'lack of socks' to' heart comfort 'to Goethe's' boys' morning blossom dreams'." (Gisela Trahms in the Frankfurter Allgemeine, March 25, 2017, Page 18)

↑ Horst Haider Munske in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of December 18, 2013, page N5

↑ Quoted from Ursula Kals in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of October 23, 2004 p. 53.

^ Wolf Schneider : German for professionals. Hamburg 1987 (3rd edition): Gruner + Jahr AG & Co., ISBN 3-442-11536-1 , page 100

[1] Peter Gallmann, Horst Sitta: Handbuch spelling (PDF; 169 kB), 1996, p. 16.

[2] Theodor Ickler : The so-called spelling reform - A shield bourgeois prank (PDF; 750 kB). Leibniz-Verlag, St. Goar 1997, ISBN 3-931155-09-9 , p. 67.

[3] Der Standard , Vienna, January 31 / February 1, 1998, p. 13.

[4] Theodor Ickler : Regulatory power. Background of the spelling reform. (PDF; 1.9 MB) Leibniz-Verlag, St. Goar 2004, ISBN 3-931155-18-8 , p. 177.

[5] Letter from Günther Drosdowski to Theodor Ickler, Mannheim, November 10, 1996, [1] .