German spelling reform of 1996

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008)

The German spelling reform of 1996 (Rechtschreibreform) is based on an international agreement signed in Vienna in July 1996 by the governments of the German-speaking countries Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, a quadrilingual country with majority German speakers. Luxembourg, a trilingual country with German as one of its official languages, regards herself "as a non-German speaking country not to be a contributory determinant upon the German system of spelling" (statement of Othon Neuen, spokesman of the Luxembourg Ministry of Education).

The new orthography is only obligatory in schools. According to the decision of 14 July 1998, of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany^[1] outside the schools everybody can write as before, because there is no law ruling orthography. The majority of people use the traditional German orthography. Therefore, it is necessary to differentiate between the new and the traditional orthography. According to critics of the reform, the result is a general insecurity and the rise of Beliebigkeitsschreibung (arbitrary spelling). For example, the traditional Schloßstraße and the newly correct Schlossstraße can merge into the incorrect Schloßstrasse or Schlossstrasse; Schlossstrasse, though, is correct in Switzerland because of ß not being used at all.

[edit] New rules

The reform is an attempt to simplify German spelling and make it easier to learn, without substantially changing the familiar rules of the German language. The new rules concern the following areas:

correspondence between sounds and written letters (this includes rules for spelling loan words)
capitalization
joined and separate words
hyphenated spellings
punctuation
hyphenation at the end of a line

Place names and family names are excluded from the reform.

[edit] Sounds and letters

Even street name signs were changed (GRIN: Kongreßstraße to Kongressstraße) as this one in Aachen

The reform aims to systematize the correspondence between sounds (phonemes) and letters (graphemes), and to strengthen the principle that derived forms should follow the spelling of the root form.

ß and ss: the letter ß (which is a combination of an s and a z, as they appear in traditional Gothic script) is to appear only after long vowels and diphthongs. The reverse, however, is not true: an s sound following a long vowel is not generally to be replaced by an ß: words like las or los or Mus or dies or Maus and their compounds remain unchanged. Also, an s sound after a short vowel is not generally replaced by ss: the article das being the most notable example. The most frequent mistake of a wrong dass or das after a comma has become more frequent as a result. Paradoxically, the new spelling is best learned starting from a good knowledge of the old. Other examples:

grüssen → grüßen (to greet)

A short vowel is to be followed by ss or s.

Ich möchte, daß du kommst. → …, dass du kommst (I want you to come)
but das Haus → das Haus (the house), as it was not spelled with an ß to begin with.

As a consequence, the German spelling of Anschluss, for example, now matches the English spelling.

der Anschluß → der Anschluss

The so-called s rule statistically makes up for over 90% of actual changes. Since a trailing -ss was against the old rule, the -ss at the end of words, like dass or muss, is now the only sure and quick sign (unless the text is Swiss) to indicate reformed spelling -- all other changes are encountered much less frequently and not in every text.

Triple consonants preceding a vowel are no longer reduced (but hyphenation is often used in these instances anyway):

Schiffahrt → Schifffahrt from Schiff + Fahrt (shipping)

Doubled consonants appear after short vowels at the end of certain words, to conform with derived forms

As → Ass because of plural Asse (ace, aces)

Vowel changes, especially ä for e, are to be made to conform with derived or otherwise close forms

Stengel → Stängel (stalk) because of Stange (bar)

Additional minor changes aim to remove a number of special cases or allow alternative spellings

rauh → rau (rough) because of blau, grau, genau

Several loan words now allow spellings that are closer to the German norm. In particular, the affixes -phon, -phot, and -graph can be spelled with f for ph.

[edit] Capitalization

The reform aims to make the capitalization of nouns uniform, and clarifies the criteria for this.

infrage stellen → in Frage stellen (to call into question)
eislaufen → Eis laufen (to ice-skate)

Examples such as Eis laufen are thought by some to be grammatically incorrect, the reason being laufen (literally to go, to walk, to run) is an intransitive verb and cannot take a direct object, thus engendering some harsh criticism the spelling reform has to endure. However, this is not true: in this word, Eis is a verb particle, not a direct object; that is, it is an attachment to the verb stem which changes or specifies the meaning of the verb.

Capitalization after a colon is now always allowed.

The polite capitalization of du, dein, ihr, euch in letters is removed, but retained for Sie, Ihnen, and Ihr.

[edit] Compound words

As before, compound nouns are joined, but several other compounds are now separated.

Nouns and verbs are generally separated:

radfahren → Rad fahren (to ride a bike)

Infinitive verbs with other verbs are separated:

kennenlernen → kennen lernen (to get to know)

Other constructions now admit alternative forms:

an Stelle von or anstelle von (instead of)

There are some subtle changes in the meaning when the new forms collide with pre-existing forms:

vielversprechend → viel versprechend (literally "much promising", but the meaning of the first word is "promising" in the sense of "up-and-coming", while the second meaning is "promising many things")

[edit] History of the 1996 spelling reform

[edit] Debate over the need for reform

The scholarly debate over correct spelling was polarized in the late 1960s, because some of the young men and women of that generation rejected spelling regulation as “repressive” and a means for social selection. Suggestions for reform were no longer limited to trying to decide doubtful cases, but rather proposals were made to fundamentally simplify German spelling and thus simplify the task of learning to write.

Many of the suggested reforms called for the elimination of the capitalization of all nouns, replacing it with a system like that in English. A similar reform had been carried out in Nordic countries after World War II.

A study in the Netherlands suggested, however, that the German system seemed to improve the reading speed of test groups. Test subjects could read text samples in their native tongue more quickly if they were written with all nouns capitalized than with the English capitalization system. The report was quite influential, and in the UK it was soon suggested that this capitalization be (re)adopted in English (nouns were often capitalized in English until the nineteenth century), although the attempt to do so failed completely.

[edit] Institutionalized reform talks since 1980

In 1980 the Internationaler Arbeitskreis für Orthographie (International Working Group for Spelling) was formed with linguists from East and West Germany, Austria, and Switzerland taking part.

Their initial proposals were further discussed at two conferences in Vienna, in 1986 and 1990, to which the Austrian government invited representatives from every region where German is spoken. In the closing remarks from the first of these meetings, capitalization reform was put off to a "second phase" of reform attempts, since no consensus had been reached.

In 1987 the Ministers of Culture of the federal states in West Germany charged the Institute for the German Language in Mannheim and the Society for the German Language in Wiesbaden with the task of coming up with a new system of rules. In 1988 these groups presented an incomplete but very wide-ranging set of proposed new rules (for example, the traditional Der Kaiser ißt den Aal im Boot would be changed to: Der keiser isst den al im bot), but these were quickly rejected by the general public and then withdrawn by the Ministers of Culture as unacceptable. At the same time, similar groups were formed in Switzerland, Austria, and East Germany.

In 1992 the International Working Group published a proposed global reform to German spelling entitled Deutsche Rechtschreibung — Vorschläge zu ihrer Neuregelung (German Spelling — Proposals for its New Regulation). In 1993 the German Ministers of Culture invited 43 groups to present their opinions on the document, with hearings held in Germany (now united), Austria and Switzerland. On the basis of these hearings, the Working Group backed off the idea of eliminating the capitalization of all nouns, and also allowed the continued differing spelling of the homophones das (the) and daß (that, as in "I am glad that you came").

At a third conference in Vienna in 1994 the results were recommended to the respective governments for acceptance. The German Ministers of Culture decided to implement the new rules on August 1, 1998, with a transitional period lasting until the 2004–2005 school year.

[edit] Institution of the reform

On July 1, 1996 all of the German states (Bundesländer), Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein as well as some other countries with German-speaking minorities (but notably not Luxembourg) agreed to introduce the new spelling by August 1, 1998. A few German states introduced the new rules as of the 1996–1997 school year.

The various dictionaries raced to be the first with the new spelling, which turned out to be very profitable. For a time, dictionaries were showing up on the best-seller lists for German books. The market for school books was also given new life.

[edit] Transitional period

Some have suggested that the main cause of the current controversy over the spelling reform may spring from the eight-year transitional period. Experience from other reforms that affect the behavior of large groups of people (introduction of the metric system, switching to the euro, Sweden's change from driving on the left to driving on the right on Dagen H, and Britain's introduction of decimal currency) suggests that such reforms may be more effective the shorter the transitional period is. When there is a longer transition period, it has been argued, many do not bother to familiarize themselves with the reform, in the hope that it will later be repealed. This has the tendency of dividing the people into groups of early adopters and resisters. Some experts conclude that the ideal is to prepare well in advance and then make the change from one day to the next.

The above analysis, however, ignores the fact that the decision of the Ministers of Culture can ultimately affect only schools and public offices, since anyone else can simply write the way he prefers. Thus it is impossible to introduce a spelling reform "overnight". Even if the spelling of private individuals could be legislated, there are still millions of books in libraries using the older spelling. Comparison to the currency change or driving on one side of the road or the other is debatable, anyway, since in those cases the old behavior completely disappears after the change (the old money is valueless or must be traded in; it is illegal and unsafe to continue driving on the "wrong" side of the road).

[edit] Public debate after the signing of the declaration of intent

The reforms did not attract much attention from the general public until after the international declaration of intent was signed. Animated arguments arose about the correctness of the decision, with schoolteachers being the first to be confronted with the implementation of the new rules. At the Frankfurt Book Fair (the largest in Germany) of 1996, Friedrich Denk,^[2] a teacher from Bavaria, obtained signatures from hundreds of authors and scientists demanding the cancellation of the reform. Among the leading supporters were Günter Grass, Siegfried Lenz, Martin Walser, Hans Magnus Enzensberger and Walter Kempowski. The protest gained further nationwide significance through initiatives such as Wir Lehrer gegen die Rechtschreibreform (Teachers Against the Spelling Reform),^[3] which was headed by the teacher and activist Manfred Riebe.

In May 1997 the "Society for German spelling and language cultivation – initiative against the spelling reform"^[4] (Verein für deutsche Rechtschreibung und Sprachpflege e. V. (VRS) – Initiative gegen die Rechtschreibreform) was founded in opposition to the German spelling reform.

The issue was taken up in the courts, with different decisions in different states, so that the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Supreme Court) was called upon to make a ruling. In May 1998 a group of 550 language and literature professors, led by Theodor Ickler,^[5] Helmut Jochems, Horst Haider Munske^[6] and Peter Eisenberg, two of the Reformers, Harald Weinrich of the Collège de France, Jean-Marie Zemb of the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques and others, with a resolution requested the reversal of the reform by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany.^[7]

On 12 May 1998 the president of the German Academy for Language and Poetry,^[8] Christian Meier,^[9] pointed out to the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, that the new German orthography reform of 1996 is based on the German spelling reform of Nazi Germany or Drittes Reich (Third Reich) of 1944.^[10]

On July 14, 1998, after one hearing on 12 May 1998 and involving only one teachers' organisation, the court declared that the introduction of the spelling reform by the Ministers of Culture was legal. The decision was not backed up by the legislature.

In the state of Schleswig-Holstein a majority voting in a referendum on September 27, 1998 called for a return to the traditional spelling. However, the Premier of the state, Heide Simonis, managed to reverse the decision of the referendum via a parliamentary vote in 1999.

As the new dictionaries were published in July and August 1996 the critics of the reform felt themselves justified. They began to demand the reversal of the change at the federal level. However, the Ministers of Culture continued to refuse to accede to their demands. The editors of the Duden dictionaries also agreed that many of the problems in the traditional spelling system were due to the arcane rules that they had produced to explain it, thus lending their support to the new spelling, which was said to be more logical.

One of the public critics of the spelling reform is Josef Kraus,^[11] the president of the Deutscher Lehrerverband.

[edit] Later developments

In 1997 an international committee was formed to handle any cases of doubt that might arise under the new rules. In 2004 the German Federal Education Minister, Edelgard Bulmahn, announced that this committee was to be given wide-ranging powers to make decisions about German spelling. Only in cases of extreme changes, such as the proposed capitalization change, would the committee require the agreement of the Ministers of Culture. This move was strongly criticized.

Simultaneously, the committee released its fourth report on the spelling reform, reviewing the points of the reform in detail. However, this report was rejected by the Conference of Ministers of Culture in March 2004. The Ministers also demanded that the committee work together with the German Academy for Language and Poetry in their future deliberations. The Academy had been strongly critical of the reform from the beginning. The Ministers also made changes to the composition of the international committee.

In July 2004 the ministers decided to introduce some changes to the reform, making the traditional spelling of certain words and phrases the preferred spelling, with the new spelling still being acceptable. They also confirmed that the transition phase would end on August 1, 2005. A Council for German Spelling was instituted on this date, taking the place of the existing international committee. This decision was unanimous and would require a unanimous vote to change, which seems highly unlikely at this point.

[edit] Legal status

The spelling change is based on the international agreement of July 1, 1996 signed by Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Strictly speaking it is not a treaty. Signers for Germany were the president of the Conference of Ministers of Culture, Karl-Heinz Reck, and the parliamentary secretary of the federal Ministry of the Interior, Eduard Lintner. There has been no parliamentary decision on the reform. Instead, as mentioned above, the German Supreme Court ruled that the reform in the schools can be decided by the Ministers of Culture. Thus, as of August 1, 2005 the traditional spelling system is to be considered incorrect in the schools, except in two of the German states, Bavaria and North Rhine Westphalia, which have both officially rejected the reform. It is presumed that from the schools it will spread to the German public. However, since 2006 the new rules are also obligatory at Bavarian and North Rhine Westphalian schools.

[edit] State of implementation

As of 2004, most German print media use rules that to a large extent comply with the reform. This includes most newspapers and periodicals, and the German press agencies DPA and Reuters. Still, some newspapers, including Die Zeit, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutsche Zeitung, created their own in-house orthographies, while most other newspapers use more or less the rules set by the DPA. These in-house orthographies thus occupy a continuum between “old spelling with new rules for ß” and (almost) full acceptance of the new rules.

Nevertheless, some newspapers and periodicals continue to use the traditional spelling system, or have switched back to it, including the most widely-read daily tabloid Bild-Zeitung (3.9 million copies), and one of Germany's most respected newspapers, Die Welt. The list at [1] (in German) contains some 300 newspapers and periodicals that are known to use the traditional spelling. (For comparison, the total number of German publications is several thousands.) However, there are at present no exact figures available as to the proportions of old/new spelling.

In books, the implementation depends on the specific subject, and often varies within a publishing house. Approximately 80 per cent of newly published books use the new system. Schoolbooks and children's books generally follow the new spelling, while the text of novels is spelled as the authors prefer. Classic works are typically printed without changes, unless they are specifically editions intended for use in schools.

Since dictionaries adopted the new spelling early on there is no standard reference work available for traditional spelling. However, Theodor Ickler, Professor of German at the University of Erlangen, has produced a dictionary that aims to meet the demand of simplification without the need of imposing any new spellings. There is also a lively trade in used copies of the older Duden dictionaries. The newest Duden (2004) includes the most recent changes proposed by the Ministers of Culture.

[edit] Actions of opponents

There are still active groups working to repeal the reform, despite the transitional period having ended. The year 2002 saw the foundation of the Forschungsgruppe Deutsche Sprache (FDS) (German Language Research Group)^[12] by historian and writer Reinhard Markner, with the support of some leading writers and intellectuals. In 2003, the Bavarian Minister of Culture, Hans Zehetmair, declared that the reform was a mistake. "Language is a dynamic process. It must grow and develop." Friedrich Denk, together with journalist and author Hans Krieger,^[13] as well as several other reform critics, founded the Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung (Council for German Spelling)^[14] on August 22, 2004.

Among politicians, Christian Wulff, Premier of Lower Saxony, also stated that Germany should go back to the traditional spelling. Peter Müller, Premier of Saarland said, "This spelling reform is a miscarriage and is not accepted by most people. Politics has to accept this and have the power to remove this reform again completely." The CDU and CSU leaders Angela Merkel and Edmund Stoiber also proposed to repeal the reform.

The German Academy for Language and Poetry suggested a compromise in 2003. Many critics consider this reform of the reform to be a second-best choice.

Several state premiers have threatened to remove language reform from the competence of the Ministers of Culture, seeking in this way to capsize the reform plans. This has been followed by many publishing houses announcing returns to the traditional spelling.

[edit] Acceptance of the reform

[edit] In Germany

According to a report on the television magazine "Panorama" on July 21, 2004, "Even six years after its introduction, 77% of Germans consider the spelling reform not to be sensible. This came out of a representative poll. A majority of adults reject the new rules, for example 81% of those between 30 and 40 years old. In the meantime, only every fifth German citizen (21%) feels that the spelling reform is acceptable."

[edit] In Switzerland

The German debate about the spelling reform produced surprise among the Swiss media outlets, rather than agreement. In Switzerland, the reform has had a less noticeable impact since the letter ß, which was the most prominent part of the reform, had not been in use anyway. Most Swiss newspapers and magazines follow house spelling rules which in the case of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Switzerland's leading daily paper, diverge substantially from the official rules. The Schweizer Monatshefte returned to the traditional Swiss spelling in 2004.

Liechtenstein follows the same spelling as Switzerland.

[edit] In Austria

Austrian media consider the subject to be open to discussion, with no decision having been made. A return to the traditional spelling would still be possible. Many media outlets in Austria use house rules rather than the official spelling rules. A Gallup poll conducted in August 2004 indicated that 62% of Austrians would favour a return to the traditional spelling. The Kronen-Zeitung (the most widely read newspaper in Austria) announced on August 16, 2004 that it would return to the classical spelling rules.

[edit] Reform of the Reform

In March 2006 the Deutsche Welle reported on the Second German Spelling Reform: “Spelling Reform Spells Trouble for Germany”.^[15]

[edit] See also

[edit] Bibliography

German dictionary plus grammar. [German spelling reform incorporated; the complete two-in-one reference]. 2. edition. Glasgow: Harper Collins, 1999, 1151 S., ISBN 0-00-472358-9
Jan Henrik Holst: German politicians' decision on March 30, 2006: Nazi orthography becomes obligatory in German schools! If children spell German the usual way, they will get "mistakes". Strong protest necessary! Hamburg, 6. Oktober 2006. Download
Sally A. Johnson:^[16] Spelling trouble? Language, ideology and the reform of German orthography. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, LTD, 2005, 208 p., ISBN 1-85359-785-6
Diethelm Prowe: Review of Sally Johnson, Spelling Trouble? Language, Ideology and the Reform of German Orthography. In: H-German, H-Net Reviews, November, 2005. online
Elke Philburn: Rechtschreibreform still spells controversy. In: Debatte. Review of Contemporary German Affairs, Bd. 11. No. 1, 2003, S. 60 – 69.

[edit] German Titles

Due to the nature of the topic, most books and papers regarding the German spelling reform appeared in the German language. The following list includes also authors who are responsible for the definition of the imposed changes.

Gerhard Augst; Karl Blüml; Dieter Nerius; Horst Sitta (Hrsg.): Zur Neuregelung der deutschen Orthographie. Begründung und Kritik. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1997, VI, 495 S., ISBN 3-484-31179-7
Hanno Birken-Bertsch; Reinhard Markner: Rechtschreibreform und Nationalsozialismus. (= Reform of German orthography and National Socialism). Ein Kapitel aus der politischen Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. [Eine Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Akademie für Sprache und Dichtung]. Göttingen: Wallstein-Verlag, 2000, 134 S., ISBN 3-89244-450-1 – Note: This book includes a comparison with the German spelling reform of Nazi Germany or Drittes Reich ("Third Reich") of 1944. Anmerkung: Dies Buch enthält einen Vergleich mit der Reform der deutschen Rechtschreibung von 1944 – online
Hanno Birken-Bertsch und Reinhard Markner: Sprachführer. Über den Sonderweg der deutschen Rechtschreibreformer. In: Junge Welt vom 3. April 2001 – online
Friedrich Denk: Frankfurter Erklärung zur Rechtschreibreform. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung vom 19. Oktober 1996 – online
Friedrich Denk: Kein Schlußstrich. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Nr. 293 vom 16. Dezember 2006, S. 18 – online
Wolfgang Denk: 10 Jahre Rechtschreibreform. Überlegungen zu einer Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse. Masterarbeit im Fachbereich 09 Wirtschaftsingenieurwesen der Fachhochschule München. München, 5. September 2006, 172 Seiten – PDF Download
Matthias Dräger: Rechtschreibreform: Matthias Dräger über den Volksentscheid in Schleswig-Holstein. „Ein Sprung in die Jauchegrube“. Interview von Thorsten Thaler. In: Junge Freiheit, Nr. 40 vom 25. September 1998, S. 3 – online
Peter Eisenberg: Das Versagen orthographischer Regeln. Über den Umgang mit dem Kuckucksei. In: Hans-Werner Eroms; Horst Haider Munske (Hrsg): Die Rechtschreibreform. Pro und Kontra. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 1997, 264 S., ISBN 3-503-03786-1, S. 47–50
Peter Eisenberg (Hrsg.): Niemand hat das letzte Wort. Sprache, Schrift, Orthographie. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2006, 121 S., ISBN 978-3-8353-0059-0 (Valerio 3/2006, Publikation der Deutschen Akademie für Sprache und Dichtung) – online
Hans-Werner Eroms; Horst Haider Munske (Hrsg): Die Rechtschreibreform. Pro und Kontra. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 1997, 264 S., ISBN 3-503-03786-1
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung für Deutschland (Hrsg.): Die Reform als Diktat. Zur Auseinandersetzung über die deutsche Rechtschreibung. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt am Main, Oktober 2000, 119 S.
Peter Gallmann, Horst Sitta: Die Neuregelung der deutschen Rechtschreibung. Regeln, Kommentar und Verzeichnis wichtiger Neuschreibungen. Mannheim / Leipzig / Wien / Zürich: Dudenverlag, 1996, 316 S. (= Dudentaschenbuch, Band 26)
Peter Gallmann, Horst Sitta: Handbuch Rechtschreiben. 4. Auflage. Zürich: Lehrmittelverlag des Kantons Zürich, 1998, 216 Seiten, ISBN 3-906718-50-6
Rolf Gröschner: Zur Verfassungswidrigkeit der Rechtschreibreform. In: Eroms, Hans Werner / Munske, Horst Haider (Hrsg.): Die Rechtschreibreform. Pro und Kontra. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 1997, 264 S., ISBN 3-503-03786-1, S. 69–79
Jan Henrik Holst: Abschaffung der Rechtschreibreform – eine Chance für die deutsche Sprachgemeinschaft. Hamburg, 6. Oktober 2006 Download
Theodor Ickler: Die sogenannte Rechtschreibreform. Ein Schildbürgerstreich. 2. Auflage, St. Goar: Leibniz-Verlag, 1997, 206 Seiten, ISBN 3-931155-09-9 (Download PDF, 750 kB)
Theodor Ickler: Kritischer Kommentar zur „Neuregelung der deutschen Rechtschreibung“. Mit einem Anhang zur „Mannheimer Anhörung“, 2. durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage, Erlangen und Jena: Verlag Palm & Enke, 1999 (Erlanger Studien, Band 116), 289 Seiten, ISBN 3-7896-0992-7
Theodor Ickler: Regelungsgewalt. Hintergründe der Rechtschreibreform, St. Goar: Leibniz, 2001, 312 S., ISBN 3-931155-18-8 (Download PDF, 1,9 MB)
Theodor Ickler: Normale deutsche Rechtschreibung. Sinnvoll schreiben, trennen, Zeichen setzen, 4. erweiterte Auflage, St. Goar: Leibniz Verlag, 2004, 579 S., ISBN 3-931155-14-5 (Früher u.d.T.: Ickler, Theodor: Deutsche Einheitsorthographie 1999 und: Das Rechtschreibwörterbuch, 2000)
Theodor Ickler: Rechtschreibreform in der Sackgasse: Neue Dokumente und Kommentare, St. Goar: Leibniz, 2004, 276 S., ISBN 3-931155-22-6 (Download PDF, 1,7 MB)
Theodor Ickler: Falsch ist richtig. Ein Leitfaden durch die Abgründe der Schlechtschreibreform, München: Droemer, 2006, 271 S., ISBN 978-3-426-27391-3
Helmut Jochems; Theodor Ickler: Die Rechtschreibreform. Ein Schildbürgerstreich. In: Pädagogische Rundschau, Jg. 51 (1997), Heft 6, S. 764–766
Helmut Jochems: Die Rechtschreibreform ist seit dem 1.8.1998 amtlich. Was heißt das? Was ist jetzt zu tun? In: Schule in Frankfurt (SchiFF), Nr. 40, November 1998, S. 6–10 – online
Helmut Jochems: Schlußstrich oder Schlussstrich? Die neue deutsche Rechtschreibung im zweiten Jahr ihrer Erprobungsphase. In: Schule in Frankfurt (SchiFF), Nr. 42, Dezember 1999, S. 9–11 – online
Wolfgang Kopke: Rechtschreibreform und Verfassungsrecht. Schulrechtliche, persönlichkeitsrechtliche und kulturverfassungsrechtliche Aspekte einer Reform der deutschen Orthographie. Zugleich: Dissertation, Universität Jena, 1995. Tübingen: Mohr, 1995, XII, 452 S., ISBN 3-16-146524-5
Hans Krieger: Der Rechtschreib-Schwindel. Zwischenrufe zu einem absurden Reformtheater, 1. Auflage, 1998, 152 S., 2. erweiterte Auflage, mit neuen Texten zur aktuellen Entwicklung. St. Goar: Leibniz-Verlag, 2000, 207 S., ISBN 3-931155-11-0 Aufsatzsammlung des Feuilletonchefs der Bayerischen Staatszeitung
Hans Krieger: „Klar, schlicht und stark“ – Sollen wir schreiben wie die Nationalsozialisten? Das verdrängte Vorbild der Rechtschreibreform. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung vom 2. Oktober 2000 [“Clear, simple and powerful” – Shall we write like the National Socialists? The suppressed model of the Reform of German orthography] – online
Heide Kuhlmann: Orthographie und Politik. Zur Genese eines irrationalen Diskurses. Magisterarbeit. Hannover, 1999 – online
Christian Meier: „Opfer der Spaßgesellschaft“. Christian Meier über die aktuelle Lage im Rechtschreibkampf, den Reform-Widerstand der Deutschen Akademie und die hiesige Lesekultur. Interview von Moritz Schwarz. In: Junge Freiheit Nr. 34, 18. August 2000. S. 3 – online
Horst Haider Munske: Orthographie als Sprachkultur. Frankfurt am Main; Berlin; Bern; New York; Paris; Wien: Peter-Lang-Verlag, Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1997, 336 Seiten, ISBN 3-631-31142-7
Horst Haider Munske: Neue Rechtschreibwörterbücher im Irrgarten der Rechtschreibreform. Wie soll man selber schreiben und publizieren in diesem Rechtschreibchaos? [Darin: „Alles Rotgedruckte ist falsch! Man vermeide die roten Giftpilze im Duden!“] In: Schule in Frankfurt (SchiFF), Nr. 44, Juni 2001 – online
Horst Haider Munske: Die angebliche Rechtschreibreform, St. Goar: Leibniz-Verlag, 2005, 163 Seiten, ISBN 3-931155-13-7
Horst Haider Munske: Lob der Rechtschreibung. Warum wir schreiben, wie wir schreiben. München: Beck, 2005, 141 S., ISBN 3-406-52861-9
Thomas Paulwitz:^[17] Chaos-Regeln. Die Rechtschreibreform ist gescheitert. Gibt es jetzt eine Reform der Reform? In: Junge Freiheit Nr. 11 vom 8. März 2002, S. 2 – online
Thomas Paulwitz: Der Rechtschreibrat ist gescheitert. Eine Bewertung der neuesten Reform der Rechtschreibreform. In: Deutsche Sprachwelt – Ausgabe 23 vom 20. März 2006, S. 4 – Download PDF
Stephanus Peil: Die Wörterliste. St. Goar: Leibniz-Verlag, 1997, 28 S., ISBN 3-931155-07-2; 10., überarb. Auflage: Die Wörterliste. Ein Vergleich bisheriger und geplanter Schreibweisen. Westerburg, In den Gärten 5: S. Peil, 1998, 42 S. – online
Elke Philburn: »New rules chaos« – Die deutsche Rechtschreibreform in Großbritannien. In: Schule in Frankfurt (SchiFF), Nr. 47, November 2003 – online
Reichs- und Preußisches Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung [Hrsg.]: Regeln für die deutsche Rechtschreibung nebst Wörterverzeichnis. Unveränderte Neuauflage von 1940, Berlin: Weidmann, 1941
Reichsministerium für Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung [Hrsg.]: Regeln für die deutsche Rechtschreibung und Wörterverzeichnis. Berlin: Deutscher Schulverlag, 1944
Manfred Riebe: Die sogenannte deutsche Rechtschreibreform und die Reform der Reform. In: europa dokumentaro Nr. 13. März 2000, S. 10–13 – online
Manfred Riebe: Unlogisch und verwirrend. Vor einem Jahr wurde in den meisten Medien die neue Rechtschreibung eingeführt. In: Junge Freiheit Nr. 31/32 vom 28. Juli / 4. August 2000; S. 11 – online
Manfred Riebe: Es ist nie zu spät. Die Front gegen die Rechtschreibreform wird breiter. In: Junge Freiheit Nr. 30 vom 16. Juli 2004, S. 2 – online
Manfred Riebe; Norbert Schäbler; Tobias Loew (Hrsg.): Der „stille“ Protest. Widerstand gegen die Rechtschreibreform im Schatten der Öffentlichkeit, St. Goar: Leibniz-Verlag, Oktober 1997, 298 S., ISBN 3-931155-10-2 – Dokumentation von 21 Initiativen gegen die Rechtschreibreform
Maria Theresia Rolland: Streitobjekt Sprache. In: Manfred Riebe; Norbert Schäbler; Tobias Loew (Hrsg.): Der „stille“ Protest. St. Goar: Leibniz-Verlag, 1997, S. 190 f.
Maria Theresia Rolland: Korrekte Informationsvermittlung durch Rechtschreibreform gefährdet. In: NFD, Information – Wissenschaft und Praxis, 48 (1997) 5; S. 289–293
Maria Theresia Rolland: Sprache in Theorie und Praxis. Gesammelte Aufsätze 1995 – 1997. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann, 1999, 247 S., ISBN 3-8260-1585-1
Wolfgang Roth: Zur Verfassungswidrigkeit der Rechtschreibreform. Zugleich Anmerkungen zum Urteil des BVerfG vom 14.7.1998 – 1 BvR 1640/97. In: Bayerische Verwaltungsblätter, Heft 9, 1. Mai 1999, S. 257–266
Michael Schneider: Geschichte der deutschen Orthographie – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung seit 1994. Universität Marburg, 2001, 30 S. – PDF
Alexander Siegner (Hrsg.): Rechtschreibreform auf dem Prüfstand. Die Rechtschreibreform – Jahrhundertwerk oder Flop? Mit Beiträgen von Reiner Kunze; Stephanus Peil; Theodor Ickler u.a. – St. Goar: Leibniz-Verlag, 1997, 55 S., ISBN 3-931155-08-0
Dieter Stein (Hrsg.): Rettet die deutsche Sprache. Beiträge, Interviews und Materialien zum Kampf gegen Rechtschreibreform und Anglizismen. Edition JF – Dokumentation, Band 9, Berlin 2004, 192 Seiten, ISBN 3-929886-21-9 (mit Beiträgen u.a. von Theodor Ickler, Walter Krämer, Christian Meier, Thomas Paulwitz, Karin Pfeiffer-Stolz, Manfred Riebe)
Verein für Deutsche Rechtschreibung und Sprachpflege e. V. (VRS) – Initiative gegen die Rechtschreibreform: Unser Kampf gegen die Rechtschreibreform. Volksentscheid in Schleswig-Holstein. Bearbeitung und Kommentar: Manfred Riebe. Nürnberg: VRS, Dezember 1998, 34 S.
Johannes Wasmuth: Verbot der Werkänderung und Rechtschreibreform. In: Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (ZUM) Nr. 11/2001, S. 858–865
Hagen A. Wegewitz: Verfassungsunmittelbare Bindungswirkung abstrahierbarer Auslegungen des Grundgesetzes. Theorie der Bindungswirkung und Methodik zur Ermittlung der tragenden Gründe von Bundesverfassungsgerichtsentscheidungen am Beispiel einer argumentationstheoretischen Analyse der Entscheidungen zur Rechtschreibreform. Zugleich: Dissertation Universität Jena, 2002. Frankfurt am Main; Berlin; Bern; Bruxelles; New York; Oxford; Wien: Lang, 2003, 366 S., ISBN 3-631-50688-0
Hermann Zabel (Hrsg.): „Keine Wüteriche am Werk“. Berichte und Dokumente zur Neuregelung der deutschen Rechtschreibung. Hrsg. in Verbindung mit der Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache. Hagen: Reiner Padligur Verlag, 1996, 448 S., ISBN 3-922957-46-3
Hermann Zabel (Hrsg.): Widerworte. "Lieber Herr Grass, Ihre Aufregung ist unbegründet". Antworten an Gegner und Kritiker der Rechtschreibreform. Aachen: Shaker, 1997, 184 S., ISBN 3-8265-2859-X
Jean-Marie Zemb: Für eine sinnige Rechtschreibung. Eine Aufforderung zur Besinnung ohne Gesichtsverlust. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1997, 154 S., ISBN 3-484-73047-1

[edit] External links

German Spelling Reform. Rechtschreibreform. In: About, Inc., A part of The New York Times Company

[edit] Orthography in the German Wikipedia

Orthographie
Hausorthographie
Rechtschreibreform
Neue deutsche Rechtschreibung
Vorlage:Alte Rechtschreibung – That means: traditional orthography
Traditionelle deutsche Rechtschreibung
Liste der Druckmedien in alter Rechtschreibung – That means: traditional orthography
Deutsche Rechtschreibung
Wikibooks: Traditionsrechtschreibung
Wikipedia:Rechtschreibung
Kategorie:Rechtschreibung
Kategorie:Deutsche Rechtschreibung

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.