[Spelling Progress Bulletin, Fall 1982 pp8-12]

SSS Conference 3: Spelling in other languages and international aspects of English Spelling continued.

"The history of Spanish orthography, Andrea Bello's proposal and the Chilean attempt: Implications for a theory on spelling reform",

by Iraset Pdez Urdaneta, Ph.D.*

*Caracas, Venezuela.


In this paper the history of Spanish orthography is briefly recounted and especially a focus is made on the role of the Real Academia Espanola de la Lengua in the simplification and unification of the spelling system of the 'Spanish language. Then, two spelling proposals of particular interest are discussed: one made by Andrés Bello in 1826 in London, and another supported by him in 1844 in Chile. The analysis of the obstacles, success and/or failure of these two attempts and some others made in the course of time (all of them described in Rosenblat, 1951) allows the identification of a number of factors or conditions which may be regarded as likely to exert a direct influence in the implementation of a spelling reform (or codification) in this or other languages elsewhere. It is recognized however, that even if such conditions are met, the achievement of a spelling reform or codification also depends upon the idiosyncrasy of the community for which the norms are intended. This higher level of socio-psychological values is less easy to describe, but a satisfactory knowledge of it becomes necessary for planned orthographic changes.

Bello's spelling propositions are examined to determine their probable progressive adoption by the Academia. The paper closes by reporting about a small research project carried out to explore how certain Venezuelan students felt in relation to a modified spelling based on Bello's ideas. The results showed a general preference for current spelling, but also an interesting correlation between spelling mistakes and a desire for spelling innovation.


In language planning, we can identify five activities: purification, revival, standardization, lexical modernization, and reform (Nahir, 1977). A look at the past reveals that some of these activities have been proposed and even carried out in different places, at different times, and with different degrees of success. Of these five activities, language purification has been the most common, and the one which has maintained a tradition still alive. Purification has been the main concern of language academies, which began to spread in Europe from 1582, when the Accademia della Crusca was founded. The academies can be regarded as true agencies of language engineering, although their interests have been essentially conservative and prescriptive. This is clearly put forward in the slogan of the Real Academia Española, - for example, founded in 1714 in order to "limpiar, fijar y dar esplendor" (to purify, to fix and to give splendor) to the Spanish language, an ideology also shared by the filial academies established in Spanish America since 1871 (Guitarte and Quintero, 1968).

The vast work of the Academia Española has been the target of many criticisms, not a few of them unjustified. The nonexistence of similar institutional bodies in the Anglo-speaking countries is, according to O. Jespersen (1940/1964), a proof that there is no need for such official or semi-official authority on language affairs. Taking a different point of view, and in favor of the Academia, we could argue that it is precisely because such a body has not existed for English that this widely used language presents today the spelling problems that we all know, problems that neither Spanish nor any other Romance or non-Romance language show to the same extent. Of course, I do not mean to say that the condition for a language to have a satisfactory orthographic system is to have a strong or efficient language academy.

The evolution of Spanish orthography is well described by Angel Rosenblat (1951) in his opening study to the fifth volume of Andrés Bello's Complete Works. The best way to refer to that evolution could be to consider two historical halves divided by the date of creation of the Real Academia Española. The first half is characterized by a diversity of unsuccessful attempts to regularize spelling, and the other, by a progressive increase in uniformity and the relative failure of all those proposals that were not sponsored by the Academia.

Rosenblat mentions as the first attempt at a spelling systematization, - one patronized by King Alfonso X, "the Wise", in the second half of the 13th century. The system proposed was not very consistent in itself. In fact, it was "flexible" on purpose, as Rosenblat notices, probably because of the large amount of phonetic and morphological variants that Castillian exhibited then. Together with this advantageous factor, there were others: the official backing and use of the system, the lack of an authorized set of spelling rules, and especially, the lack of a great number of people who could use the written materials.

The next attempt was an individual one by E. A. de Nebrija in 1517. In the meantime, Alphonsi spelling had become quite modified by ignorance and the Latinization of graphemes for the "visual pleasure" of it or the nostalgia for this classical language. In Rosenblat's opinion, Nebrija's effort at ordering and establishing the Spanish orthography was guided by the principles of "escrivir como pronunciamos ly pronunciar como escrivimos" ('write as we pronounce and pronounce as we write'), a persistent point of view in the discussion of the topic among Spanish scholars. Nebrija's proposal was not adopted because of the lack of an official support to counteract the arguments of a strong and erudite opposition, the unfavorable reaction of publishers, personal inconsistency in the use of the system, and inconsistency in the rules of the system itself - since some words were written in accordance with the phonetic principle, but others followed an etymological criterion - also a persistent point of view about spelling among Spanish scholars.

After Nebrija, all kinds of attempts were made by writers, obviously the people most in need of an orthographic system. Therefore, there were as many systems as writers. Some systems combined coherent propositions with representational flaws caused by wrong phonetic perceptions. Other systems included unRomanic graphemes (we must say that no effort has been successful in any Romance language when graphemes different from those of Latin or those adopted by Medieval Latin were promoted), and other systems proceeded by the simplification of the phonology of the language, much in agreement with popular pronunciation.

In 1630, Gonzalo Correas published his Ortografia kastellana, regarded as the most radical spelling proposal ever made in Spanish, not so much because it was very phonetic, but because Correas was meticulously consistent in using it. The phonetic extremeness of Correas generated an intense reaction from the etymologists. One of them, Juan de Robles, argued that it was not a lack of perfection that a single letter could be pronounced in different ways. Robles also argued that too many innovations would make it impossible for literate people to understand the new writing, and for those who learned the new conventions, to read old materials. Robles defended the etymological principles, but also accepted that, in some cases, popular usage could be admitted, particularly when the etymological basis was not evident or pervasive. This point of view has more or less prevailed since then. By the time the Real Academia Espanola was created - and as Rosenblat observes - there were both an orthographic anarchy and a desire for regulation. To the criteria of pronunciation, etymology, popular usage, and conventional differentiation, a fourth criterion was added: academic authority.

Thirteen years after its creation, the Academia began to publish its Diccionario. The lexicographic work soon required a definition of the orthographic norms to be applied, and the Academia decided to follow a very rigid etymological criterion. [1] This criterion was abandoned later on when the Academia realized the many difficulties fostered by such a point of view. In fact, in its Orthographia, published in 1741, the Academia wanted to reconcile the three criteria characterizing the making of Spanish orthography: (1) write the same as pronounced when by pronunciation alone the letter is known; (2) re sort to etymology when pronunciation is not helpful, usage is diverse and origin is known; and (3) follow to usage when it is general and constant. In some homo-orthographic cases, the Academia suggested differentiation by means of stress marks, distinct graphemes or the duplication of them. From 1754 on, new editions of the Ortografia de la lengua castellana (notice that <th> and <ph> have been dropped) were published. In all of them, the Academia progressively incorporated changes in the tendencies of phoneticism and popular and consistent usage. Although outside the Academia, several writers attempted to promote systems emphasizing either etymology or pronunciation (or even their predilection for one grapheme over another because of its "Hispanic beauty"), the academic orthography was modern where it did not need to be conservative, and conservative where an innovation was difficult to adopt. The success of the Real Academia was ensured, little by little, by its official character, the effectiveness and coherence of its work, and, more important, by the popularization of its prescriptions.

If the situation in Spain was anarchic in regard to the spelling of the language, despite the efforts of the Academia, the situation in the Spanish New World was even worse, not because there were as many orthographers promoting personal systems, but because there was no discussion about the problem and because the diffusion of the changes adopted in the Peninsula was slower. To these facts, we must add another one: American Spanish exhibited particular phonological phenomena which were not as strong as in Iberian Spanish:

In the liberal intellectual environment of 1826's London, Andrés Bello and Juan García Del Río, two Spanish American patriots who had come to England as representatives of republics recently born, published in La Biblioteca Americana, o Miscelámea de Literatura, Artes i Ciencias, a journal created to divulge in the Hispanic New World the progress of modern illustration, the article, "Indicaciones sobre la conveniencia de simplificar i uniformar la ortografía en America" ('Indications about the convenience of simplifying and uniforming orthography in América'). Bello's purpose was to suggest rather than to impose, and to simplify in order to make uniform. Bello endorsed the write-as-pronounced criterion, and justified it by arguing against the etymological and constant usage arguments. In his opinion, the perfection of a spelling system laid in the strict observation of the biuniqueness principle of one grapheme for each sound, and one sound for each grapheme; moreover, the task of applying such a principle wouldn't be too difficult in a language so simple in its phonology. He therefore offered for consideration a series of eight basic changes, to be carried out in two distinct stages. [2] For the first stage, Bello made proposals for:

l. the adoption of <j> in all cases where /h/ is pronounced (so eliminating the alternatives among <j>, 'strong' <g> and <x>, e.g. "general" and not "general");

2. the use of <i> whenever <y> sounds vocalic, e.g. "lei" and not "ley";

3. the supression of <h> when it is soundless, e.g. "onor" and not "honor";

4. the use of <rr> whenever /r/ is pronounced, e.g. "rrápi-do" and not "rápido";

5. the use of <ze>, <zi> instead of <ce>, <ci> (=[θe], [θi]), e.g. "zentral" and not "central", "zivil" and not "civil";

6. the supression of soundless <u> in <que>,<qui>(=[ke] [ki]) e.g. "qeso" and not "queso", "gieto" and not "quieto".

For the second stage, Bello proposed:

7. the adoption of <q> instead of "strong " <c> or <k>, e.g. "qolor" and not "color"; and

8. the supression of soundless <u> in < Sue>, <gui> (=[ge], [gi]), e.g. "gerra" and not "guerra", "ágila" and not "águila".

Bello did not replace <x> for <qs> for he was not sure the corresponding sounds were those of <ks> or <gs>, preferred to keep the etymologically based distinction between <b> and <v> (which sounds like [b]) and did not pay attention to the use of stress marks, capital letters and punctuation.

None of these changes were Bello's originally, inasmuch as all of them had been suggested, here and there, by different orthographers since Nebrija. The proposition on the use of <ze>, <zi> indicates that Bello really had in mind the whole Spanish-speaking world, and that he was backing a spelling norm that was not so much for America as for most of Spain. [3] In general, his proposal did not encounter unexpected enthusiasm or rejection anywhere. Bello himself was not even consistent in using it, and he seemed very satisfied with most of the innovations introduced by the Academia periodically. The cultural situation of Spanish America at that time, the rather little need for orthographic norms in a continent still at war against Spain, without enough printing houses, and with the majority of its few educational establishments closed or dismantled, together with the unknown prestige of Bello could be taken as the most obvious reasons why such a spelling proposal was not significantly welcomed. [4]

In 1844 Bello was in Chile and had become the arbiter of that nation's cultural and educational institutions, not to mention the legislative, and he presided over the Universidad de Chile, which had the responsibility of advising the national government in all matters relating to education. A year before, in 1843, the Ministry of Public Instruction had asked the Principal of the Normal School, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, to prepare a report on reading methods practiced and known; in Chile. In the preparation of the report, Sarmiento was unavoidably led to the spelling problem, and, with Bello's approval and stimulation, he submitted to the School of Philosophy and Humanities his Memoria sobre la ortografia castellana.

The Memoria was very controversial, since Sarmiento, who was then notoriously anti-Peninsular, advocated a somewhat drastic reform, a spelling system exclusively for Spanish Americans. The coincidence with the proposal made by Bello in 1826 was almost complete. The University explained that the changes were not intended to promote a system so revolutionary that it would hamper the communication with other Spanish speaking peoples, or that would incite other institutions or individuals to dare so. It also believed that all changes were to be made by steps, and that modifications could be accepted if the ideas and habits of society allowed it.

The new norms were immediately made official by the national government. The educational authorities assumed the responsibility of using them. The system was taught in schools at all levels; it was used in new textbooks and even adopted by some local newspapers. [5] However, the acceptance was not total, and Bello himself had to publicly defend the adopted norms. [6] Soon the initial enthusiasm began to fade; the newspapers returned to the old spelling conventions after combining the two systems for a while; the government did not enforce the use of the official orthography among its bureaucracy, and the schools openly opposed it. In less than two years, the original proposal was reduced to three accepted rules: the use of <i> for vocalic <y>, the use of <j> for strong <g>, and the use of <s> for <x> (a simplification of [ks]). These three features constituted what is known as "Chilean orthography." It is not identical to what is known as "Bello orthography," since Bello only agreed with the first two changes, but rejected the third. [7]

Bello's defense of the 1841 reform was not based on strong arguments: it resorted to criticizing the spirit of conformism concerning the preference for the old system, to criticizing the spirit of conformism lying beneath the preference for the old system, to criticizing the uselessness of etymological graphemes kept for the love toward the ancient times, and the "superstitious cult" to academic prescriptions. It is possible to understand these feelings, but there are reasons which are valid to the extent that they are matter-of-fact: the unacceptability of the University proposal indicated that people did not want innovation as much as they wanted uniformity, and that uniformity was achievable by the observance of the customs or by obedience to academic precepts.

Coincidentally, the Spanish monarchy, in 1844, decreed that only academic orthography could be taught in the kingdom. The anarchy in the Peninsula easily and rapidly submitted to the trend imposed by the Crown. America also compromised in an atmosphere of cultural rencontre. In 1927, a presidential decree ended the use of Chilean orthography in the name of Hispanic unity. The Real Academia has been, since then, the single and unchallenged arbiter of every move toward a simpler orthography of the language. [8]

What I have recounted here is useful for two reasons: first, it provides a historical picture of the attitude of the Spanish speaking people to the spelling question (a picture to be taken into account if a total or partial spelling reform is to be suggested), and secondly, it provides us with a number of facts which could be incorporated within a theory on spelling changes. Thus, we may say that, for a spelling change to be successful (i.e., accepted by an important majority), certain conditions are needed:

(1) that the reform (or the orthographic codification) be really needed (and spelling reforms are not always needed as innovations per se, but for a pragmatic reason such as ensuring uniformity, or a sentimental reason such as keeping or reconstructing a bond with the past);

(2) that the reform (or orthographic codification) have an official character, and, in some cases, be the product of academic study and support (particularly in communities with a literary written tradition);

(3) that the new orthographic rules lie: consistently, fully and exclusively used from the moment they are adopted in the government, education, the arts, and communications;

(4) that the new orthography should be easily represented, to avoid its rejection by publishers on the grounds of being uneconomical, and difficult to learn by children and adults;

(5) that, depending upon the trend in the community, a consistent criterion for representation (whether phonetic or etymological) be exclusively followed, or a consistent combination of criteria be maintained, if that satisfies the needs and habits of the people;

(6) that the reform (or orthographic codification) be not in conflict with the phonological perception that the people (especially the learned) have of their language;

(7) that the reform do not include graphemes perceived as (too) foreign by their potential users. [9]

(8) that the reform allow the users of older orthographic norms access to new written materials, and for the users of the new norms access to the old written materials;

(9) that the spelling criterion should be flexible enough to allow conventional differentiation of lexical items that would be homo-orthographic otherwise;

(10) that the spelling reform (or codification) should be popularized (though the emphasis may very in the case of people with either greater or less formal education);

(11) that the diffusion of spelling changes or norms be made as rapidly as possible; and, finally,

(12) that the adoption of spelling norms do not result in communicational or cultural isolation or unnecessary self-differentiation, particularly when the language or a version of it is shared by a number of nations.

It should be added that an orthography does not have to be completely phonetic or etymological to be perfect. Moreover, the biuniqueness principle of orthographic representation is not always possible to achieve in phonetic spelling, not is a phonetic spelling a sure indication of perfection. Likewise, an orthographic system does not always need to be so strictly phonetic as to include dialectal features which characterize only the variety spoken by a major subgroup.

Of course, much depends upon the idiosyncrasy of the community that wants or rejects spelling changes or orthographic codifications. The manifestations of that idiosyncracy do not have to be logical. For example, to Spanish speakers, yesterday and today, graphemes such as <k>, <q> and <w> may look "foreign" or even "ugly." Venezuelans will not give up "Venezuela" for "Benesuela", even though they know the latter is what they pronounce. The Hispanic mentality is open to innovation in points or aspects in which it could be equally negative. Although the Hispanic world is regarded as rather anarchistic, its anarchism is really a superficial one, for Hispanics are, in my opinion, "centrifugal but not loose." This explains the convergence of fascism and democratic monarchism in Spain today, and of dictatorship and permanent revolution in most of Spanish America ... not to mention the distrust and, at the same time, compliance to the Real Academia Española de la Lengua. In a complex world such as the Hispanic, the choice or implementation of an orthographic norm has, the same as elsewhere, widespread social and political implications. Any change will attract the attention of the gatekeepers of a great written tradition, and raise popular concern when the literacy level of its masses is high enough. The Ibero-Americans want a modern, easy orthographic system authorized by the Academia, and the Academia wants the same thing without messing it up.

The spelling proposals that Bello made in 1826 and supported in 1844 have been brought back for academic consideration on many occasions. Some of Bello's propositions remain valid, and the Academia seems to be aware that the present system still contains pseudo-etymological representations, mixtures of phoneticism and etymology, and unneeded graphemes. There are 30 graphemes in Spanish: 5 vocalic (<a, e, i, o, u>) and 25 consonantic (<b, c, ch, d, f, g, h, j, k, l, ll, m, n, ñ, p, q, r, rr, s, t, v, w, x, y, z>). Except for <i> and <u>, there are no apparent important problems with the vowels. Bello proposed to use <i> instead of vocalic <y>, and this may be a likely change in the near future. In relation to the consonants, the digraphemes <ch, ll, rr> may remain unchanged. It is probable that the replacement of "strong" <g> for <j> will come about before the suppression of <h>, so advanced in modern Italian. More difficult seems to be the reduction of "strong" <c>, <k> and <q> into one grapheme (although soundless <u>, as in <qtr-> and < gu-> may be eliminated ahead), the use of <rr> in word initial position, or the replacement of <x> by <s> or <cs>, <qs>. In a scale of unlikely immediate changes, there follows the reduction of <b> and <v> into <b> (nowadays, however, teachers, broadcasters and singers are spreading a hypercorrective [v] of obvious graphemic origin). At the bottom, I would place all those changes involving <z> for "soft" <c>, <y> for <ll> (Spanish American "yeismo") or <s> for <z> (Spanish American "seseo").

Exploring attitudes of Venezuelan students towards Bello orthography.

I would like to conclude by reporting the results of a small research project carried out to explore the attitudes among Venezuelan students of two different educational levels towards Bello's orthographic system. Subjects were 150 students (equal numbers of males and females) of the third year of high school education, and identified as members of the local lower, middle and upper classes, and 50 students (equal numbers of males and females) from the course "Language and communication" at the Instituto Universitario Pedagógico de Caracas. A list of words was dictated for them to transcribe, after they had determined, in a second list, which word they preferred: the one written in Bello's orthography (MS), without indicating so, or the same word written in current orthography (CS). The scores for each group were the following:

Table 1.
Group scores for dictation and spelling choice (%)
UC-HS-s (n=50)
MC-HS-s (n=50)
LC-HS-s (n=50)
U-s (n=50)
Spelling choice.

As it is shown, in the dictation (which was given to test how good the student was at CS), the upper class students (UC-HS-s) did better than any other group, followed by the university students (U-s) and then those high school students belonging to the lower class (LC-HS-s). There were more mistakes in the middle class group. Regarding the choice of spelling alternative, it was found that more middle class students (MC-HS-s) tended to prefer MS, together with the university students. Both the upper and lower class students were very close in their preference for CS.

It is premature to derive sound conclusions from the facts mentioned above. Nevertheless, we may suspect that, once again, we have here a case of what W. Labov has called "middle class linguistic insecurity." The dictation scores show that, in our testing, the middle class students did not do as well as the upper and lower class students. Insecurity may have then influenced in the choice of MS, but also the desire for a more phonetic or simpler spelling that could ensure a greater probability of orthographic success. Being more secure, the upper class group did not manifest any special preference for MS: this group has such good command of the established spelling norms as to be willing to replace them with different, more innovative ones. In the lower class group, the situation may have a distinct motivation: to ensure social ascendence, the lower class individual would pay more attention and concede more importance to the norms of stable and successful groups. The lower class group does not seem to need an innovation from a source lower than that, since such an innovation may hinder its way up. These explanations are only intended as working hypotheses for further research.

I have mentioned that the university group did better than the middle class high school students, but coincided with it in also showing a high preference for the MS alternative. Two hidden variables may be at work here: educational level and group orientation. According to the first variable, university students did better in the dictation because they had been exposed to spelling pressure longer. Moreoever, in the subject "Language and communication" they receive intensive instruction to correct spelling deficiencies. On the other hand, these university students, who are to become high school teachers, usually express a desire for a simpler orthography to be taught. Most of these students come from middle and lower classes. The feeling is less intense among students who will become teachers of Spanish grammar and literature or of other modern languages such as English or French.

In the spelling choice section, the only word which was the most accepted across all groups was "enrredo" (instead of CS "enredo"), even by individuals who had written "honra" (and not "honrra") in the dictation.

There is probably another hidden variable in this test: the fact that the inquiry was a classroom activity, conducted by teachers of Spanish grammar. Students may not have felt so free as to choose certain items in MS. Had they known that MS was Bello's, the results could have been different, due to the fact that Bello - a Venezuelan himself - is regarded as one of our nation's greatest scholars. That being the case, the spelling principle would be based on personal prestige, rather than on academic authority. Anyway, despite that prestige, the results might not have been very different from those I have presented here.


 [1] Nevertheless, the Academia sanctioned some usages which can be regarded as progressive: it established <y> and <v> for consonantal and not vocalic values (although such forms as "rey" and "ley" were kept, together with such forms as "mui" and "hoi"); it established <b> and <v> according to the etymological criterion (but the Academia wrote "haver" instead of etymological "haver"); it suppressed <ç> for <z>; it distinguished when the vowels and consonants (particularly <m, n, r, c, s >) could be doubled; and it settled the orthography of the etymological consonantac sequences <bst, ct, nc, nt, pt, ns, sc, xc> etc.

 [2] It is not very clear why Bello proposed two steps for the changes to be carried out. Rosenblat assumes that the reason behind it relates to the fact that the changes proposed for the second step were more "radical." A similar attitude will characterize the Chilean attempt, in 1844. The message is obvious: a spelling reform should not be associated with a spelling revolution nor foster one, perhaps because at this level of language - undoubtedly the most arbitrary - all representations are relative.

 [3] It still surprises me that the spelling proposal made by Bello in 1826 was so ignored by his fellow countrymen, at a time when there was a good excuse for an orthographic revolution which, in the long run, might have even affected Spain. I have in mind some particular cases in which a revolutionary process was accompanied by successful system-wide orthographic change. I do not mean to say however that orthographic change is possible when co-occurring with revolutionary social change (J.A. Fishman (1971) provides examples of four possible situations: (a) successful orthographic revision with and without revolutionary social change (e.g., Russian and Turkish, and Czech and Roumanian), and (b) revolutionary social change with or without successful follow through of planned orthographic revision (e.g., Soviet Yiddish and (Northern Mandarin) Chinese). Fishman also mentions cases of attempts to bring about orthographic change under non revolutionary situations (e.g., Israel, Haiti and Japan), or orthographic unification of closely related languages in the absence of accompanying societal unification (e.g., India, Africa and Indonesia-Malaysia). The case in Spanish America clearly shows that the revolution was a political affair rather than cultural, and that an orthographic change in similar circumstances may not come through when the cultural bonds between two political entities remain preserved.

 [4] As far as we know, the only support came from a newspaper in Mexico, El Sol de Méjico, which reproduced the Indicaciones, and from a person who later published an article to acknowledge the good intentiones of Bello and García del Rio, but also to point out that the unification of the orthography was to be made by the Academia in order to avoid endless disputes.

 [5] Vid. footnote 130 in Rosenblat, 1951: cxvi.

 [6] Vid. "Ortografía" in A. Bello's Estudios gramaticales (vol. v: 97-115).

 [7] Bello's own orthography has been analyzed and discussed in "La ortografía de don Andrès Bello. Informedictamen de la comisión editora de las Obras Completas." Revista Nacional de Cultura, 74 (1949): 151-166.

 [8] The last orthographic prescriptions were made by the Academia in 1964. (Vid. A. Rosenblat, 1967. Las nuevas normas ortográficas de la Academia Española. (2 ed.) Madrid: Oficina de Educacion Iberoamericana.) For a description of the current situation of Spanish spelling, see Real Academia Española de la Lengua, 1975. Esbozo de una. nueva gramatica de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe (P.1.8, pp. 120-159).

 [9] Of course, this is not the case when the reform or codification implies, for example, voluntary adoption of Roman letters.


Bello, Andres. (1826)/1951. "Indicaciones sobre la conveniencia de simplificar y uniformar la ortografía en America." Estudios gramaticales (Vol. V, Obras Completas de Andrés Bello). Caracas: Ministerio de Educación (pp. 69-87).

Fishman, J.A. 1971. "The sociology of language: an interdisciplinary social science approach to language in society." Advances in the Sociology of Language (vol. 1), J.A. Fishman, ed. The Hague: Mouton (pp. 217-404).

Guitarte, G.L. and R.T. Quintero, 1968. "Linguistic correctness and the role of the academies in Latin America." Current Trends in Linguistics (vol. 4), T. Sebeok, ed. The Hague: Mouton (pp. 562-604).

Jespersen, O. (1940)/1964. Mankind, Nation and Individual from a Linguistic Point of View. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.

Nahir, M. 1977. "The five aspects of language planning - a classification." Language Problems and language Planning, vol. 1: 107-123.

Rosenblat, A. 1951. "Las ideas ortográficas de Bello." Estudios gramaticales (Vol. V, Obras Completas de Andrés Bello). Caracas: Ministerio de Educación (pp. ix-cxxxviii).

Back to the top.