Van apenkool tot zielenpoot. Over de totstandkoming van de laatste Nederlandse spellinghervorming

Samenvatting

From apenkool to zielenpoot. The Realization of the Last Dutch Spelling Reform. The article presents a critical case study of a policy process whose outcome is the opposite of the original intentions. The case analyzed is the last reform of Dutch orthography, introduced in 1996. While the intention was to make spelling simpler and easier, the actual result of the reform is that the spelling of certain words has become more complicated, and less phonetic. The question of why this happened is answered on several levels. The recent reform can be seen as resulting from a long history in which Dutch spelling was subject to heated public debates, and reform movements strove for simplification in the name of progress and equality. The last of these movements arose in the 1960s (in connection with more general social movements for democratization) but failed in 1972 when the Dutch and Flemish governments decided to postpone any reform. As a result, there was still a formally recognized 'spelling problem' to be resolved in a bureaucratic way. Subsequent commissions were established in 1985 and 1990, with the aim of making orthography 'more consistent' but also 'socially acceptable.' This proved to be impossible. First, the commissions attempted to make spelling more consistent than language itself, creating artificial rules and adding differences between written and spoken language. Secondly, the most striking modifications proposed by the last commission were not socially accepted but strongly criticized by writers and journalists. The government decided on a compromise by rejecting the radical proposals and accepting the less striking ones. This decision satisfied no one, but was implemented nevertheless. The eventual reform is to be regarded as the unforeseen, unintended, and undesired outcome of a process in which different groups, each with their own interests, orientations, and power resources, were involved. 59 References. Adapted from the source document.