Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:17:40.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social media, spontaneous writing and dictation. Spelling variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 August 2016

LOUISE-AMELIE COUGNON ,
LENAIS MASKENS ,
SOPHIE ROEKHAUT  and
CEDRICK FAIRON
LOUISE-AMELIE COUGNON*
Affiliation:
Université Catholique de Louvain
LENAIS MASKENS
Affiliation:
Université Catholique de Louvain
SOPHIE ROEKHAUT
Affiliation:
Université Catholique de Louvain
CEDRICK FAIRON
Affiliation:
Université Catholique de Louvain
*
Address for correspondence: Université Catholique de Louvain, Faculté de philosophie, arts et lettres - CENTAL, Louvain-la-Neuve 1348, Belgium e-mail: louise-amelie.cougnon@uclouvain.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the hypothesis of young people having the multi-skills required to switch between formal and informal communication. We collected samples of the written output of students across different media and communication situations. The results obtained through dictation tests show that the students’ level is relatively low, with a majority of grammatical errors. The analysis of linguistic forms common to the corpora indicates that all the participants use traditional spelling in at least one of them. Lastly, we present a qualitative analysis of spelling variation and an overview of the teenagers’ linguistic representations.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , November 2017 , pp. 309 - 327
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Asmaak Shafie, L., Azida Darus, N. and Osman, N. (2010). SMS language and college writing: The language of the college texters. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 5 (1): 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aziz, S., Shamim, M., Aziz, M. F. and Avais, P. (2013). The impact of texting/SMS language on academic writing of students – What do we need to panic about? Linguistics and Translation 55: 12884–12890.Google Scholar
Beaufort, R., Roekhaut, S., Cougnon, L.-A. and Fairon, C. (2010). Une approche hybride traduction/correction pour la normalisation des SMS. Actes de la 17e conférence sur le traitement automatique des langues naturelles (TALN'10). 19–23 juillet 2010. Montréal.Google Scholar
Bernicot, J., Goumi, A., Bert-Erboul, A. and Volckaert-Legrier, O. (2014). How do skilled and less-skilled spellers write text messages? A longitudinal study of sixth and seventh graders. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 30 (6): 559–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binet, A. (1909). Les Idées modernes sur les enfants. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Borsus, W. (2009). Rapport introductif sur les pratiques d'écritures et orthographe : Quels rapports ? Bruxelles: Parlement de la Communauté française.Google Scholar
Bouillaud, C., Chanquoy, L. and Gombert, J.-É. (2007). Cyberlangage et orthographe : Quels effets sur le niveau orthographique des élèves de CM2, 5ème et 3ème ? Bulletin de Psychologie 60 (6): 553–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulot, T. and Blanchet, P. (2011). Dynamiques de la langue française au 21ème siècle: Une introduction à la sociolinguistique. [Online] http://www.sociolinguistique.fr Google Scholar
Catach, N. (ed.) (1980). L'Orthographe française. Traité théorique et pratique. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Chervel, A. (2008). L'orthographe en crise à l'école : Et si l'histoire nous montrait le chemin ? Paris: Retz.Google Scholar
Chervel, A. and Manesse, D. (1989). La dictée: Les Français et l'orthographe : 1873–1987. Paris: INRP/Calmann-Lévy.Google Scholar
Cougnon, L.-A. (2015). Langage et sms. Une étude internationale des pratiques actuelles. Presses universitaires de Louvain. ISBN: 978-2-87463-371-0.Google Scholar
Cougnon, L.-A. (2008). Le français de Belgique dans ‘l'écrit spontané’. Approche d'un corpus de 30.000 SMS. Travaux du Cercle Belge de Linguistique [Online] http://uahost.uantwerpen.be/linguist/SBKL/sbkl2008/cou2008.pdf Google Scholar
Cougnon, L.-A. and François, T. (2011). Quelques contributions des statistiques à l'analyse sociolinguistique d'un corpus de SMS. In Bolasco, S., Chiari, I. and Giuliano, L. C. (eds), Statistical analysis of textual data. Proceedings of 10th International Conference JADT. Sapienza: University of Rome, pp. 619–630.Google Scholar
Cougnon, L.-A., Roekhaut, S. and Beaufort, R. (2013). Typologies de variation graphique dans l'écrit sms. In: Baddeley, S., Jejcic, F. and Martinez, C. (eds), L'orthographe en quatre temps. 20e anniversaire des Rectifications de l'orthographe de 1990 : enseignement, recherche et réforme, quelles convergences ? Paris: Honoré Champion, pp. 129–148.Google Scholar
Dansieh, S. A. (2011). Sms texting and its potential impacts on students’ written communication skills. International Journal of English Linguistics 1 (2): 222–229.Google Scholar
David, J. and Goncalves, H. (2007). L'écriture électronique, une menace pour la maitrise de la langue ? Le Français Aujourd'hui 156: 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dottrens, R. (1921). L'appréciation objective de l'orthographe par les dictées. L'Éducateur 12.Google Scholar
Drouin, M. and Davis, C. (2009). R u txting? Is the use of text speak hurting your literacy? Journal of Literacy Research 41 (1): 46–67.Google Scholar
Fairon, C., Klein, J. R. and Paumier, S. (2006). Le langage sms : Étude d'un corpus informatisé à partir de l'enquête “Faites don de vos sms à la science”. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Fairon, C. and Simon, A. C. (2009). Informatisation d'un corpus de dictées : 40 années de pratique orthographique (1967–2008). In: Willems, Martine (ed.), Pour l'amour des mots. Glanures lexicales, dictionnairiques, grammaticales et syntaxiques. Hommage à Michèle Lenoble-Pinson. Bruxelles: Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis, pp. 131–154.Google Scholar
Goumi, A. and Bernicot, J. (2012). Le langage SMS chez les adolescents, faut-il s'en inquiéter ? L'École Numérique 12: 34–35.Google Scholar
Kemp, N. and Bushnell, C. (2011). Children's text messaging: Abbreviations, input methods and links with literacy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27 (1): 18–27.Google Scholar
Leporcq, C. 2012. Pratiques d'écriture d'adolescents en dehors du cadre scolaire : entre ce qu'ils font et ce qu'ils disent. . . Mémoire non publié. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
Leporcq, C., Siroux, J.-L. and Draelants, H. (2013). Pratiques et représentations juvéniles de l’écriture à l’ère d'internet. Les Cahiers de Recherche du Girsef 94: 1–20.Google Scholar
Manesse, D., Cogis, D., Dorgans, M. and Tallet, C. (2007). Orthographe, à qui la faute? Issy-les-Moulineaux: ESF éditeur.Google Scholar
Maskens, L., Cougnon, L.-A., Roekhaut, S. and Fairon, C. (2015). Nouveaux médias et orthographe. Incompétence ou pluricompétence? Discours 16.Google Scholar
Millet, A., Lucci, V. and Billiez, J. (1990). Orthographe mon amour. Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
Moreau, M.-L. (1997). Sociolinguistique: Concepts de base. Sprimont: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Panckhurst, R. (1997). La communication “médiatisée” par ordinateur ou la communication “médiée” par ordinateur? Terminologies Nouvelles 17: 56–58.Google Scholar
Plester, B., Wood, C. and Bell, V. (2008). Txt msg n school literacy: does texting and knowledge of text abbreviations adversely affect children's literacy attainment? Literacy 42 (3): 137–144.Google Scholar
Plester, B. and Wood, C. (2009). Exploring relationships between traditional and new media literacies: British preteen texters at school. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (4): 1108–1129.Google Scholar
Plester, B., Wood, C. and Joshi, P. (2009). Exploring the relationship between children's knowledge of text message abbreviations and school literacy outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 27 (1): 145–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosen, L. D., Chang, J., Erwin, L., Carrier, M. and Cheever, N. (2010). The relationship between ‘'textisms'’ and formal and informal writing among young adults. Communication Research 37 (3): 420–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spooren, W. (2009). Bezorgde ouders ? De relatie tussen chat en schrijfkwaliteit. In: Spooren, W. and Onrust, M. S. (eds), Studies in Taalbeheersing 3. Assen: Van Gorcum, pp. 331–342.Google Scholar
Tayebinik, M. and Putey, M. (2012). Txt msg n English language literacy. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 66 (7): 97–105.Google Scholar
Thélot, C. (1996). Connaissances en français et en calcul des élèves des années 20 et d'aujourd'hui : Comparaison à partir des épreuves du certificat d’études primaires. Paris: Les Dossiers d'Education et Formations.Google Scholar
Thurlow, C. (2006). From statistical panic to moral panic: The metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11 (3): 667–701.Google Scholar
Volckaert-Legrier, O., Bernicot, J. and Bert-Erboul, A. (2009). Electronic mail, a new written-language register: A study with French-speaking adolescents. British Journal of Psychology 27 (1): 163–181.Google Scholar
Wood, C., Jackson, E., Hart, L., Plester, B. and Wilde, L. (2011). The effect of text messaging on 9- and 10-year-old children's reading, spelling and phonological processing skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26 (1): 28–36.Google Scholar
Wood, C., Meachem, S., Bowyer, S., Jackson, E., Tarczynski-Bowles, M. L. and Plester, B. (2011). A longitudinal study of children's text messaging and literacy development. British Journal of Psychology 102 (3): 431–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zahid, Y. and Mehmood, A. (2013). Effects of sms on writing skills of the university students in Pakistan (a case study of University of Gujrat). Asian Economic and Financial Review 3 (3): 389–397.Google Scholar