Debate surrounding alphabet reform: expert points out the greatest risk...

Plans for the next set of changes to the Uzbek alphabet are sparking discussions among the public and experts.

Linguist Iroda Azimova has expressed a critical view of the current reform, emphasizing that frequent changes to the script could negatively affect literacy, reading speed, and the process of information processing.

Why is the expert concerned about the reform?

According to Iroda Azimova, the upcoming visual changes to the alphabet and spelling system will require a new adjustment period for the population.

She notes that if the form of writing that people are accustomed to changes, the mechanism for reading text quickly and holistically may be disrupted.

The "holistic reading" mechanism could be disrupted

The linguist points to cognitive barriers as one of the main risks.

In other words, if a student or an adult previously recognized and read a word as a whole, they might be forced to read word by word or letter by letter after the shapes of the letters change.

This reduces the speed of text comprehension and makes the reading process more difficult.

Possibility of increased spelling errors mentioned

According to Azimova, if standard spelling norms change, spelling errors in the public sphere may increase once again.

In particular, if several different writing styles are used in parallel in education, media, official documents, advertising, and on the internet, it is likely to have a negative impact on the overall level of literacy.

The need for stability in language emphasized

The linguist states that stability is the primary requirement for the qualitative development of the linguistic field.

In her view, constant changes to the script can hinder the natural and systematic development of the language.

Reform is necessary, but how?

Iroda Azimova stated that she is not against the idea that alphabet reforms need to be finalized.

However, according to her position, stability, convenience for the reader, and the society's capacity for adaptation should take priority over visual changes in this process.

The debate surrounding the alphabet brings one question back to the agenda: will the change simplify the language, or will it force people to relearn it all over again?