Cover not available
Article published In:
Lingvisticæ Investigationes
Vol. 41:2 (2018) ► pp.161–178

Instant messaging, digital writing and spelling production quality in French

A cognitive approach

| Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès
| Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès
| Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès
| Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès
The increased use of digital writing led to the appearance of written content that may differ from the standards of spelling. Writing instant messages leads to the production of two different types of written forms that differ from standard spelling: (a) those that can be confused with misspellings and (b) those that cannot. We showed that the production of the second type of modifications has no effect on spelling production. Our research protocol allowed comparing two corpora (written in 1974 and 2012). These results showed that when a modification has no orthographic equivalent, its use cannot damage the quality of spelling production. When it does, the effect on spelling may be negative.
Keywords: standard writing, instant messaging, adolescent, spelling, digital writing
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Writing using digital media: Between standard and digital writing
    • 1.1How do we produce written content?
    • 1.2How do we produce written content in French when we have to write a dictation?
  • 2.The use of digital writing: What kind of effect on spelling?
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Ethical clearance and conflict-of-interest disclosure
    • 3.3Material and procedure
    • 3.4Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 4 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00018.sim
References (47)
References
Anderson, H., & Elsner, R. J. 2014. Exposure to “textisms” does not lower spelling scores for elementary school aged children. Current Research in Psychology, 5(2), 89–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anis, J. 2003. Communication électronique scripturale et formes langagières. Paper presented at the Actes des Quatrièmes Rencontres Réseaux humains / Réseaux technologiques. Retrieved December 11th, 2010, from [URL]
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. 1974. Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, 81, 47–89. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. 2000. The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in cognitive sciences, 4 (11), 417–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernicot, J., Goumi, A. & Bert-Erboul, A., Volckaert-Legrier, O. 2014. How do skilled and less-skilled spellers write text messages? A longitudinal study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., & Chervel, A. 1969. L’orthographe. Paris: Maspero.Google Scholar
Bonetti, L., Campbell, M. A., & Gilmore, L. 2010. The relationship of loneliness and social anxiety with children’s and adolescents’ online communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13(3), 279–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouillaud, C., Chanquoy, L., & Gombert, J.-E. 2007. Cyberlangage et orthographe: quels effets sur le niveau orthographique des élèves de CM2, 5ème et 3ème? Bulletin de Psychologie, 60(6), 553–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bryant, J. A., Sanders Jackson, A., & Smallwood, A. M. 2006. IMing, text messaging, and adolescent social networks. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11(2), 577–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A. 1991. The role of the graphemic buffer in spelling: Evidence from a case of acquired dysgraphia. Neuropsychology and Cognition, 31, 269–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Catach, N. 1980. L’orthographe française : traité théorique et pratique avec des travaux d’application et leurs corrigés. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Caverni, J.-P. 1998. Un code de conduite des chercheurs dans les sciences du comportement. L’année psychologique, 98(1), 83–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cellier, M. 2003. Orthographe. In M. Prouilhac (Ed.), Savoirs et culture, 193–247. Toulouse: CNED.Google Scholar
Coltheart, V., Patterson, K., & Leahy, J. 1994. When a ROWS is a ROSE: Phonological effects in written word comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (A: Human Experimental Psychology), 471, 917–955. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cousin, M. P., Thibault, M. P., Largy, P., & Fayol, M. 2006. Apprentissage de la morphologie flexionnelle du nombre nominal: étude de la récupération d’instances chez des enfants tout-venant et des enfants présentant un trouble de l’apprentissage de l’écrit. Rééducation orthophonique, 44(225), 93–109.Google Scholar
De Jonge, S. & Kemp, K. 2012. Text message abbreviations and language skills in high school and university students. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(1), 49–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drouin, M. A. 2011. College students’ text messaging, use of textese and literacy skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(1), 67–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drouin, M. A. & Davis, C. 2009. R u txting? Is the Use of Text Speak Hurting Your Literacy? Journal of Literacy Research, 41(1), 46–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Febvrel, A., & Hureau, C. 2008. “Msn c tro bi1?”: Influence de la communication médiée par ordinateur sur les pratiques orthographiques: étude auprès d’une population de CM2. Unpublished master’s thesis.Google Scholar
Fernandez, J. & Yuldashev, A. 2011. Variation in the Use of General Extenders and Stuff in Instant Messaging Interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2610–2626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goumi, A. & Bernicot, J. 2012. Le langage SMS chez les adolescents, faut-il s’en inquiéter ? L’école numérique, 121, 34–35.Google Scholar
Haggan, M. 2007. Text messaging in Kuwait. Is the medium the message? Multilingua, 26(1), 427–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. R. 1996. A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing, 1–27. Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. 1980. Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing, 3–30. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kerswell, L., Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Sears, C. R., & Owen, W. J. 2007. Homophone Effects in Visual Word Recognition Depend on Homophone Type and Task Demands. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(4), 322–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khiari, W., Bouhafs, A., & Roche, M. 2016. Comment prendre en compte les spécificités de “l’écriture SMS” pour l’analyse de sentiments? In Proceedings JADT (Journées internationales d’Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles), Nice, France, 2016Google Scholar
Lanchantin, T., Simoës-Perlant, A., & Largy, P. 2015. De la relation de l’écrit numérique et la qualité de l’orthographe. Glossa, 1181, 40–57.Google Scholar
2012a. DWIM typology (Digital Writing in Instant Messaging) based on the spelling level of French 7th grade students. Paper presented at the International Psychological Applications Conference and Trends 2012, Lisbon.
2012b. The case of Digital Writing in Instant Messaging: when cyber written productions are closer to the oral code than the written code. PsychNology, 10(3), 187–214.Google Scholar
2014. Good spellers write more textism than bad spellers in instant messaging: The case of French. PsychNology, 12(1–2), 45–63. Retrieved from [URL]
Largy, P., Cousin, M. P., Bryant, P., & Fayol, M. 2007. When memorized instances compete with rules: the case of number-noun agreement in written French. Journal of Child Language, 341, 425–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lété, B. 2006. L’apprentissage implicite des régularités statistiques de la langue et l’acquisation des unités morphosynthaxiques. Langue française, 151(3), 41–58. DOI logo
Maskens, L., Cougnon, L. A., Roekhaut, S., & Fairon, C. 2015. Nouveaux médias et orthographe. Incompétence ou pluricompétence? Discours [En ligne], mis en ligne le 09 septembre 2015, consulté le 30 septembre 2016. URL: [URL]. DOI logo
Petitjean, C. & Morel, E. 2017. “Hahaha”: Laughter as a Resource to Manage WhatsApp Conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 1101, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pétillon, S. 2006. Le discours SMiste, un nouveau corpus? [Electronic Version]. Dossier “Orthographe", 4401.Google Scholar
Plester, B., & Wood, C. 2009. Exploring relationships between traditional and new media literacies: British preteen texters at school. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 141, 1108–1129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plester, B., Wood, C., & 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plester, B., Wood, C., & Joshi, P. 2009. Exploring the relationship between children’s knowledge of text message abbreviations and school literacy outcomes. The British Psychological Society, 271, 145–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Powell, D., & Dixon, M. 2011. Does SMS text messaging help or harm adults’ knowledge of standard spelling? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(1), 58–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivière, C. A. & Licoppe, C. 2005. From voice to text: Continuity and change in the use of mobile phones in France and Japan. In R. Harper (Ed.) The inside text, 103–126. Dordrecht Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simoës-Perlant, A., Thibault, M.-P., Lanchantin, T., Combes, C., Volckaert-Legrier, O., & Largy, P. 2012. How adolescents with dyslexia dysorthographia use texting. Written Language and Literacy, 15(1), 65–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sjöberg, U. 2003. Making sense of screen-based media. The uses and readings of television, computer games, and Internet among swedish young people. In I. Rydin (Ed.) Media fascinations: Perspectives on young people’s meaning making, 147–164. Goteborg: Nordicom.Google Scholar
Valkenburg, P. & Soeters, K. 2001. Children’s positive and negative experiences with the Internet: An exploratory survey. Communication Research, 28(5), 652–675. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Volckaert-Legrier, O., Bernicot, J. &, Bert-Erboul, A. 2009. Electronic Mail, a new written-language register: a study with French-speaking adolescents. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 271, 163–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, C., Jackson, E., Plester, B., & Wilde, L. 2009. Children’s use of mobile phone text messaging and its impact on literacy development in primary school [Electronic Version]. Retrieved September 18th, 2013 from [URL]
Wood, C., Kemp, N., Waldron, S., & Hart, L. 2014. Grammatical understanding, literacy and text messaging in school children and undergraduate students: A concurrent analysis. Computers & Education, 701, 281–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zahid, Y. & 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. [URL]
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Sandra, Dominiek
2022. Too Little Morphology Can Kill You: The Interplay Between Low-Frequency Morpho-Orthographic Rules and High-Frequency Verb Homophones in Spelling Errors. In Developing Language and Literacy [Literacy Studies, 23], ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.