Historical Development of Canadian Spelling

5.1 Historical Development of Canadian Spelling

In contrast to the ‘British norm’ on the official level, the press both national and originating from the US helped spread the American spellings (Orkin 1970: 149-150). Canadian Press Style Book published since 1940 and Globe and Mail Style Book (Jolly 2002), for instance, were stylistic guides for the contributors to their journals; and as Cornerstone (2006) notes, CP norms used to be largely American, at least as far as -o(u)r endings were concerned . In accord with this idea, David Crystal (1995: 340) declares that “the press on the whole uses US spelling [while] British spelling [...] is the norm in learned journals and school textbooks”, and as Jolly (2002) adds, this is the case also in pedagogical writings whereas the books of general interest follow American spelling.

It should be pointed out, however, that the press does not use exclusively American spelling, as Crystal (1995: 303) illustrates by the “extracts from two papers [which] show program and favor alongside theatre, fibre optics and manoeuvring”. He continues that juxtapositions of US and British spellings are common in personal correspondence and they occur also on in the names of ‘shops’, as in Tire Centre, which “show[s] that Canadian English cannot be identified with either American or British English” (340).

5.2 -our/ -or

The former preferred choice of -or ending in the papers was conditioned by the Canadian Press’s style manual which “insisted that its writers spell colour and honour without the u’s” (Cornerstone 2006). Even the dictionaries, such as GCD, favoured the -or versions. After the 1998 version of GCD gave precedence to -our form, however, the Canadian Press conformed to it. (Cornerstone 2006). Other recent dictionaries favour the -our spelling, too, as is evident from ITP (1997: 275) which lists colour as a preferred variant of the American color or from the 2006 edition of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (COD) that does the same³⁰.

Naturally, the preferences in individual regions vary. According to the Canadian English Usage (1997), -our prevails in eastern Canada (Ontario and Quebec) and in British Columbia whereas in the Prairie Provinces -or endings are dominant³¹ (qtd. in Peters 2004: 397). To look more closely on the province of Quebec, there has been an interesting shift in preference from -or to -our during the last two decades. The results of Ireland’s 1979 study on the regional preferences of British or American spellings placed Quebec among the provinces with the American ending preferences; Hamilton had reached the same conclusion in 1958: he claimed Quebec English to have many common features with the English in the North of the US (qtd. in Jolly 2002). The point here is not to analyze the factors which influenced the change from -or to -our in Quebec but to realize that the change has happened.

The preceding note on regional preferences is included here to touch on the regions with prevailing -or usage which exemplify the ‘non representative sub-varieties’ of CanE: the existence of such sub-varieties, according to Bell’s criterion of reduction (Wardhaugh 1992: 35), prove the existence of CanE as a distinct variety. The shift in Quebec usage, on the other hand, illustrates the vitality of language (Wardhaugh 1992: 34), which is another evidence of the distinctiveness of Canadian variety.³²

Several examples of different Canadian and American spellings follow:

5.3 -ce / -se

As for the -ce/ -se suffixes, CanE agrees with the BrE practice: for nouns, -ce is the preferred spelling. According to Cornerstone Word Company³⁴ (2006), “four fifths of the sample [of the population] preferred -ce over -se in nouns such as defence, practice and pretence”. In some words, however, the distinction between individual parts of speech is made by use of -ce for nouns and -se for verbs (Strongitharm 1995). In this respect, more inconsistency exists in AmE than in CanE: where CanE clearly tells apart verb and noun forms, as in practice and practise or licence and license (Strongitharm 1995), in AmE -ce/ -se suffixes remain interchangeable, which results in the obliteration of the distinction.

Nevertheless, with reference to Mathesius’s remark on ‘tolerable irregularities’ in a language, I do not aim to claim that AmE is not a distinct variety. The point is to accentuate the more consistent pattern which governs this spelling phenomenon in Canada and thus to underlie its consistency.

5.4 -er/ -re

As regards the -er/ -re spellings in the three discussed varieties of English, Canadian choice of the -re spellings in such words as fibre, lustre, sombre, or theatre (Orkin 1970: 151) agrees with the British norm. Cornerstone’s site (2006) informs that the -re spellings are favoured by eighty-nine per cent Canadians.

AmE, the norm of which is the -er spelling, records here another ‘deviation from its norm’: Peters (2005: 461) notes that in some words, such as acre, cadre, macabre or timbre, the -re spelling must be retained, so that no “aspects of the word’s meaning and identity” were changed, e.g. “timbre would otherwise be identical with timber”.

In order to avoid such inconsistencies as well as to facilitate the formation of derivatives, -re spelling was selected as a norm for ‘International English’ (461). One of the factors that contributed to the selection of this spelling variant was “the extensive use of -re in Canada” (461). The fact that Canadian usage was taken into account when defining the ‘norm’ for ‘International English’ proves the significance of CanE as a separate variety.

Peters (2005: 461) offers a reason for the choice of -re by Canadians: the consistency with the French words of this kind. To illustrate it by an example, all the above mentioned ‘-re words’ would be spelled identically in both English and French, except a small diacritical distinction in the French théâtre. In accord with Peters, Dressman (2005) mentions that Canadian editors tend “to keep forms from British standard that are closer to French”. By contrast, referring to the results of Ireland’s and Hamilton’s studies, Jolly (2002) points out that in Quebec, the occurrence of words with the endings corresponding to French is the lowest. She continues that this might be a strategic move aiming at the differentiation of English and French³⁵.

To compare the views on Canadian and American varieties of English, it should be noted that even though criticized as inconsistent, CanE proves again more consistency in its -re spelling choice than its ‘southern neighbour’, AmE, the existence of which, in contrast to CanE, is not being occasionally called into question.

The examples of -er/ -re differentiation between CanE and BrE on the one hand and AmE on the other include:

Calibre, meagre, litre, reconnoitre, louvre, or spectre³⁶ (Peters 2005: 461).

5.5 -ise/ -ize

Recently, the preferences concerning the -ise/ -ise spellings seem to be undergoing change in all three varieties in focus. However, the change is better perceptible in BrE and AmE than in CanE which, in this spelling case, reflects the American development. As Peters (2005: 298-299) states, CanE, like AmE, opts for -ize spellings. In BrE, the situation is more complicated as both spellings are acceptable, -ise being the preferred variant. On account of etymology and practicality, -ise appears to be a better choice as only one exception to the rule would exist (capsize). With the -ize endings chosen as a norm, as many as nineteen words, namely advise, comprise, excise or surprise, would figure as exceptions.

With respect to this fact, -ise variant would logically seem more convenient for ‘International English’ usage. Yet -ize spellings for some of those nineteen ‘-ise words’ have already penetrated certain American dictionaries and so has the -yze spelling as a variant of -yse in analyse/ analyze³⁷. Consequently, there has been a gradual decrease in the number of exceptions to the American spelling rule. Thus, as a ‘norm’ for ‘International English’, the -ize spellings were selected, being already used by scientists worldwide (Peters 2005: 299). Considering the language development and change, these spellings might, in some time, become favoured also in BrE.

5.6 ae and oe Digraphs versus e

These days, the favoured Canadian spellings in words like orthop(a)edic or diarrh(o)ea are not the ae and oe digraphs but just e which is also a norm in the US (Peters 2005: 20, 389). About eighty years ago, however, the situation was described differently: As Kennedy Crone proclaimed, a large number of American spellings, such as maneuver, were almost never employed in Canada, being rejected together with words like thru and discust as representatives of ‘simplified spelling’ (1931, qtd. in Orkin 1970: 150). Current tendencies are in compliance with both usage data and linguistic arguments: they head towards simplification. Linguists explain that these digraphs are not truly etymological if they are Latin adaptations of the Greek diphthongs ai and oi, as e.g. in p(a)ediatrics, and that the reduction of superfluous vowels, as in hom(o)eopathy, is desirable (Peters 2005: 20, 389).

BrE demonstrates less consistency than AmE and CanE. For BrE, digraphs are standardized forms but “some words are already being spelled with e” (Peters 2005: 20). In this respect, it is chiefly BrE that has been undergoing substantial change recently and that shows less stability in spelling than CanE. Still, nobody doubts its distinctiveness just because of two co-existing phenomena. By contrast, the distinctiveness of CanE is sometimes doubted on exactly the same grounds, which is evidently unequal.

5.7 Doubling of l and p Consonants before Suffixes

As for the doubling of the l or p consonant before a suffix, the Canadian practice is dealt with, though quite generally, in The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. In both British and American varieties, the doubling of p is, in certain cases, inconsistent. While fixed rules order that “monosyllables with a simple vowel double the p”, as in flipper or stepped and that “words of more than one syllable [...] do not double it”, as in enveloped or galloping”, the spelling of certain words, namely hiccup, kidnap and worship, is not uniform: BrE allows for both hiccuped and hiccupped while the AmE norm recognizes only the former variant; AmE, on the other hand, allows for both spellings kidnap(p)ing and worship(p)ing while BrE standard is only a doubled p (Peters 2005: 403). Peters further notes that for Canadians, both spellings of the l and p consonants before suffixes are acceptable.

COD (1998) indicates that in Canada, the doubling of the l consonant before a suffix is more frequent than single l spellings (Peters 2005: 309). Peters (2005: 309) adds that “the pattern varies from east to west, and between book publishers and the press (Editing Canadian English, 2000), where the first have been more committed to doubling than the second”. AmE standard is a single l spelling. BrE remains inconsistent, balancing between its deeply rooted doubling, as in traveller, persistent variations, as in cruel(l)est, marvel(l)ous, wool(l)en, and tendencies towards single l spellings, as in paralleled (Peters 2005: 309).

5.8 em- /en- and im- /in- Prefixes

Although Orkin (1970: 145-152) points out the differences between BrE and AmE and although he specifies the preferences in CanE for most of the features he describes, he does not mention explicitly whether Canadians favour British or American prefixes em- /en- or im- /in-, respectively. To provide at least a partial idea of Canadian preferences in this particular domain, I undertook a small research into dictionary entries on the basis of which I offer my view of the current em- /im- choice.

The method I chose was the following: from the section of words starting with em- prefix in GCD (1967) I singled out the words which offered also alternative spellings, the ones with the im- prefix. This left me with four words, embalm, embed, empanel and empower. Then I looked up these words in the ‘im- section’ of the same dictionary, just to assure that the definitions occur only at one of the two alternative entries, the preferred one. Subsequently, I looked up the same words in both ‘em- and im- sections’ of GCD (1983 ed.) and ITP (1997) to see whether the preferences have still been the same or changed.

While all three dictionaries favour em- prefixes in all cases but impanel, GCDs, in contrast to ITP, always offer alternative spellings. ITP states only embalm and empower as acceptable variants. Even though the observed sample of words is a short one to allow any serious generalizations to be drawn from the data, the results indicate that there have been no substantial changes in preferences over the last thirty years as far as the em- /im- spellings are concerned. Rather, it seems that Canadians’ preferences start to be more ‘clearly cut’, as suggests the disappearance of two expressions with im- prefix from the recent dictionary.

As for the em- /en- and im- /in- prefixes, the above-mentioned data imply that Canadians choose prevailingly British spelling which is observed consistently enough.

5.9 Other Spelling Features

There is another feature that differentiates AmE spelling from the BrE one: the use or the non-use of particular characters. AmE spellings, as Orkin (1970: 147) records, are longer in the instances of distill, fulfill, instill or installement³⁸ (where BrE norm is a single l) as well as in words like cantaloupe, forebear, peddler and raccoon (BrE cantaloup, forbears, pedlar, racoon). More frequently, however, AmE eliminates one letter or more. Thus American aluminum, flunky, chili, ax or annex are shorter than BrE aluminium, flunkey, chilli, axe or annexe (Orkin 1970: 146).

CanE prefers doubled l in distill and the three following words, as suggested by ITP (1997: 402, 550, 705) that lists always both spellings but doubled l as a ‘first-place’ variant. The same fact was confirmed by the Cornerstone’s Canadian English Page (2006) which reads: “Majorities of up to 90 per cent liked the double L in such words as enroll, fulfill, install, marvelled, marvellous, signalled, skillful, traveller and woollen” (italics added).

According to GCD (1967) and ITP (1997), all the above-mentioned examples of American ‘longer spellings’ are Canadian ‘preferred variants’ and as for the following examples of the US ‘shorter spellings’, all but ax are preferred now, although flunky, a preferred term in the ITP, was presented in the GCD only as a ‘second-place’ variant. British spelling for axe has ‘strengthen its position’, from being listed as only one entry - axe or ax - in GCD to having two entries in ITP - axe also ax - indicating support for the longer spelling.

Moreover, Canadians opt for British cauldron, cheque, syrup, (AmE caldron, check, sirup) while choosing American airplane, font, gasoline, jail and jimmy (BrE aeroplane, fount, gasolene, gaol and jemmy) (Orkin³⁹ 1970: 146, 151). Naturally, certain preferences have altered in time, thus while GCD cites ‘mollusc or mollusk’, ITP swaps the order of words to ‘mollusk or mollusc’. Toffee (AmE), presented by Orkin (1970: 151) as a preferred term to taffy (BrE), is not designated as such in either of the two dictionaries. Actually, ITP (1997: 1386, 1429) defines taffy as

1. 
   A sweet chewy candy of molasses, maple syrup, or brown sugar boiled until very thick and then pulled until the candy is glossy and has its shape.
   

2. A sweet candy made by pouring hot maple syrup on snow.

and toffee as

A hard chewy candy made of brown sugar or molasses and butter. [Alteration of TAFFY]
which rather suggests that AmE term is favoured, considering the ‘toffee entry’ contains the reference to taffy⁴⁰.
Spelling is a complex phenomenon, liable to changes and containing many inner irregularities and co-existing forms. The chapter has demonstrated that CanE cannot be considered less consistent than other varieties of English for each spelling system has its own rules and its own inconsistencies. In view of this fact, Canadian spelling system is as good as American or British one and deserves proper attention.

Download 331.17 Kb.

Share with your friends: