Does spelling matter? Simon Horobin says that it matters because spelling shows ‘the richness of our language and its history’. He argues for retaining spelling unchanged as a testimony to the ‘richness of our linguistic heritage and a connection with our literary past’. His book shows that until the last two hundred years it was constantly changing, but ‘rather than lamenting the inconsistencies and complexities of English spelling’, Horobin traces ‘how these developed and what they tell us about the fascinating history of our language’.

Most of the book, then, is about much that is common to histories of spelling such as Scragg (Reference Scragg1974), Carney (Reference Carney1994), Sebba (Reference Sebba2007), Upward & Davidson (Reference Upward and Davidson2011) and Crystal (Reference Crystal2012). The ‘richness’ is in the changes in English spelling, from Old English, the Norman invasion, the etymological reforms of the Renaissance and the 18^th century, and the gradual fixing of English and American spelling - not all shown in modern spelling. ‘The basic principle of the English spelling system is that sounds map onto letters, albeit often in complex ways’, and Horobin describes the ‘complex ways’ that make 25% of spellings not fit any system.

It would be possible to compile from Horobin's appended list of words a Dictionary of Awkward Spellings that gave the historical explanations of why thousands of English spellings are awkward. ‘An important principle of a writing system is that it should only encode features that are of communicative significance’, but Horobin shows that ‘standard English spelling comprises a variety of different forms that have developed in an erratic and inconsistent manner over a substantial period of time’. He explains, for example, how in early manuscript handwriting there was confusion of minims - i n m u - so that letters such as <y> or <o> were often used to replace them; how some similar words' spelling depends upon guessing as to whether their origins were French or Latin; and how many silent letters bear witness to pronunciation that has been lost.

The account of reformers goes from the monk Orm to Christopher Upward, but none later, except for Masha Bell (Reference Bell2004). Some of their ideas were adopted, although other practical ideas are still not taken up. Horobin supports the concept of correct spelling because consistency is important for clear communication, noting that spelling is easier to regulate than other features of language. Spelling proficiency is widely taken as a measure of goodness, industry and a badge of social status. People think of ‘correct spelling as an index of intelligence, moral fibre and general trustworthiness’. The literate want to keep what they are good at, present readers have invested time and effort learning it, and there are vested interests. Changing spelling may have unforeseen consequences, make past literature inaccessible, suppress regional accents, and obscure correspondence between a few words like sign and signature. These are all common arguments, which reform of spelling can take account of (Yule, Reference Yule2011; and see also Writing systems which contains the material.). New to the debate are Horobin's international examples, with details of furore and failures of change in some other languages.

Horobin makes some bold statements. Language is confused with its spelling, which is the tool to write it. For example, ‘the crucial feature of a standard language is its uniformity and resistance to change’, which is hardly true of a living language. Phonemes – the small set of units, usually about 20 to 60 and different for each language, which make up the basic distinctive units of speech sounds in the words of a language – are confused with our different regional speech sounds so that dialects are offered as a reason why reform of spelling is impossible. Yet standard spelling represents phonemes – there are at least six ways that dog is pronounced – but, like most people, Horobin assumes that any reform must show pronunciation closely, that is, phonetically. I can only assume that Horobin is not aware of the large body of research supporting spelling reform. An account of spelling research that includes experimental evidence from 1908 onward published at <www.valerieyule.com.au/spellresearch1.htm> includes Seymour et al. (Reference Seymour, Aro and Erskine2003), Paulesu et al. (Reference Paulesu, Demonet, Fazio and McCrory2001), Thackray (Reference Thackray and Tune1982), Thorstad (Reference Thorstad1991) and Upward (Reference Upward1992). Although the claims of many reformers are ‘frequently made without reference to research’ (because they regard it as self-evident that spelling is a barrier to literacy for the uneducated), Horobin describes the evidence he has not seen as ‘ambiguous at best that spelling is easier to learn with close relationships of sound and spelling’, and he ignores morphophonemic reforms.

Horobin concludes – from the fierce opposition to even trivial spelling changes in a few other countries – that ‘any attempt to overturn such views and to introduce a reformed spelling of any kind seems doomed to failure’. He fails to record many protracted campaigns that have ended in recent successful reforms and makes no reference to the 38 countries that have updated their writing systems in the past 150 years, usually in more than one step (see <http://www.valerieyule.com.au/writsys.htm>). But then few English speakers are aware of this.

From a sociologist's point of view, a major criticism is that Horobin presumes a world without any who are disadvantaged. Hence he dismisses Masha Bell's (Reference Bell2004) ‘exaggerated and unfounded claims about the difficulties of English spelling’. Horobin claims that reformers have ‘no consideration of complex socio-economic factors’. They do – learners and struggling adults are directly affected, with spelling just one more burden to overcome. Reformers focus on the unnecessary difficulties of English spelling today, many recorded usefully here by Horobin, which present barriers to literacy for children, disadvantaged and dyslexic non-readers and for foreigners seeking to learn the world's lingua franca. It is a pity that Horobin does not acknowledge the considerable research about the intrapersonal defects of those millions, adults and children, who fail the task, and the research which seeks to address the task they fail.

Horobin confines himself to the world of those who master spelling with ease. ‘Many readers of this book will find the acceptance of erratic spelling as impossible to support and will consider the maintenance of our English spelling system a highly desirable and necessary activity, more than compensating for the hours of classroom time dedicated to learning its numerous complexities and exceptions.’ ‘Spelling is the most easily defined and regulated aspect of linguistic usage and therefore the domain with the greatest attention of prescriptivists.’ He gives them a disproportionate share of his attention. He observes the derision given to those not using standard spellings, citing Lord Chesterfield's warning to his son: ‘One false spelling may fix ridicule upon (a gentleman) for the rest of his life’ (Horobin, 2013: 1). He describes how misspellings are ridiculed, like Dan Quale's potatoe, once a legitimate variant, and notes how errors on a website are likely to produce huge loss of revenue. Horobin discusses non-standard spellings by the young, online, brand names and novel first names, but sees them as corruptions rather than signs of change. Yet some linguists, notably David Crystal (Reference Crystal2012), are beginning to acknowledge that some spellings could be improved with no problems for the literate.

This reviewer, as a schools and clinical child psychologist, thinks that spelling matters because it is a barrier to literacy for millions that can, however, be made a more efficient tool for communication (Yule Reference Yule2011, Reference Yule2013). Scientific experiment, not the old arguments recycled, is able to challenge all the old assumptions and arguments, including those of previous reformers, and to re-examine every aspect Horobin discusses. Spelling change is something that everyone can experiment with today. This book is a useful review of spelling history, explains the present concern with keeping spelling as it is and adds some new international aspects – but it makes a disappointingly one-sided conclusion to the arguments for or against any change.