The cut spelling system is the removal of redundant letters and was founded by Valerie Yule. The English spelling that we have at present has been said to be too difficult for most people, even after eleven years old barely half of English speakers become confident spellers unlike Italian children who can spell accurately after two years at school. English as it is, often spells identical sounds in different ways such as “seem” “team” “convene” “sardine” “protein” “fiend” “people” “he” “key” “ski” “debris” and “quay”. Spellers have to learn and remember these differences; it takes many years of learning and testing. If the “EE” sound was always spelt as “ee” it would save learners a lot of time and effort.
There are many advantages of cut spelling and its principles are widely acknowledged. There is a particular usefulness for this system as it helps foreign learners by the clear indication of pronunciation. The production of text would be more rapid as cut spelling shortens writing by around ten percent. The greater regularity of cut spelling means a lesser amount of time spent learning to read and write and less need for checking and correcting. There is a convenience of cut spelling in public signs, as the use of cut spelling would mean the signs could be smaller or the writing larger providing a better impact on the public. On computer screens and video screens a lot more words could be fitted onto the screens. Fewer abbreviations would be necessary if cut spelling was to be used as the words would already be small enough without the use of abbreviations. By using cut spelling the environment would benefit as there would be a lower consumption of raw materials and energy; this is due to books and newspapers needing less paper which then leads to less storage and transport to be required. From all of which I have mentioned money and time has been saved.
There are also many disadvantages as the cut spelling system would disrupt the continuity of literacy and would be very impractical. Children already in school would find the sudden change extremely difficult and would affect there learning and exam results, the children/students would focus more on how the words are newly spelt rather than what they are learning. It would be extremely frustrating to find out everything you have already learnt is wrong. The cost of re-education would be exceedingly expensive and disruptive. A new alphabet may be achieved and would need to be learnt this would also be very disruptive. Computer programmes and books (especially dictionaries) would need to be re-written in order for the new system to function this would take an incredible amount of time and money. If the cut spelling system was to be introduced then a barrier would be formed between younger and older generations which is not something that people would want.
After assessing different views of the cut spelling system, I have come to the conclusion that although it is a good idea in theory introducing the cut spelling system would not be practical and would probably cause too much confusion to society.