Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T18:39:18.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The variable use of diacritics in synchronous computer-mediated French discourse: Replication research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2022

Geraldine Blattner  and
Lawrence Williams Open the ORCID record for Lawrence Williams [Opens in a new window]
Geraldine Blattner
Affiliation:
Florida Atlantic University, LLCL, Florida, United States
Lawrence Williams*
Affiliation:
University of North Texas, World Languages, Literatures & Cultures, Texas, United States
*
*Corresponding Author. Email: lawrence.williams@unt.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study promotes replication research as a methodological approach that is needed in order to compare earlier and more recent analyses of digital discourse. When much of the existing research was conducted, the primary means of communication included the use of a computer keyboard, (presumably) less bandwidth, and fewer devices. However, with an increase of the range of device types, the study of diacritics deserves another look within the Digital Media landscape. The present study examines the variable use of diacritics in synchronous (i.e., real-time) French chat discourse. We have replicated a study with different data sets from the same chat corpus, which is composed of data from a European chat server. We have also compared the data from the 2008 half of the corpus to data from the same chat channels collected in 2016 (just over 60,000 words in each half of the corpus, which included a total of 7,569 tokens that were coded). Our analysis of the 2008 corpus showed that one main finding was not the same as ours (from a different part of the 2008 corpus). Moreover, a diachronic analysis (2008 vs. 2016) revealed reversed trends between the two age-based channels (i.e., 20s vs. 50s).

Type
Article
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 32 , Special Issue 2: Special Issue (French Variation in Digital Media) , July 2022 , pp. 216 - 242
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Académie française. (n.d.). Rectifications de l’orthographe. URL: http://www.academie-francaise.fr, retrieved 12 June 2020.Google Scholar
Al-Rashdan, O. (2010). L’emploi variables des signes diacritiques dans le français tchaté : une étude variationniste en temps apparent. Master’s thesis, University of North Texas.Google Scholar
Anis, J. (1988). L’écriture: théories et descriptions. Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
Anis, J. (1999). Chat et usages graphiques. In : Anis, J. (ed), Internet, communication et langue francaise. Paris: Hermès, pp. 71–90.Google Scholar
Bayley, R. (2004). The quantitative paradigm. In: J. Chambers, K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 127–128.Google Scholar
Bauman, R. (1992). Performance. In: Bauman, R. (ed), Folklore, Cultural Performances, and Popular Entertainments. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 41–49.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16: 645–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catach, N. (1973). La structure de l’orthographe française. La Recherche, 39: 949–956.Google Scholar
Catach, N. (1980). L’orthographe française. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Catach, N. (1991). Orthographe ! Orthographe ! Paris: Duculot.Google Scholar
Catach, N., Gruaz, C. and Duprez, D. (1986). L’orthographe française: traité théorique et pratique. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Cougnon, L.-A. (2010). Orthographe et langue dans les SMS: conclusions à partir de quatre corpus francophones. Études de Linguistique Appliquée, 160: 397–410.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Danet, B., Ruedenberg-Wright, L. and Rosenbaum-Tamari, Y. (1997). ‘Hmmm…Where’s that smoke coming from?’: Writing, play and performance on Internet Relay Chat. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2.4: n.p. URL: https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/2/4/JCMC246/4584364, retrieved 16 July 2021.Google Scholar
Daussy, L. (2009). La réforme de l’orthographe mieux appliquée à l’étranger. Le Figaro. URL: https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2009/12/21/01016-20091221ARTFIG00660-la-reforme-de-l-orthographe-mieux-apliquee-a-l-etranger-.php, retrieved 11 July 2021.Google Scholar
EuropNet Statistics. URL: http://stats.europnet.org/, retrieved 2 February 2018.Google Scholar
Fayol, M. and Jaffré, J.-P. (2016). L’orthographe: des systèmes aux usages. Pratiques, 169: 1–15.Google Scholar
Finnegan, R. (1992). Oral Traditions and the Verbal Arts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gadet, F. (2008). Ubi scripta et volant et manent. In: Stark, E., Schmidt-Riese, R. and Stoll, E. (eds), Romanische Syntax im Wandel. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 513–529.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4, 1–37. URL: http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2007/761, retrieved 2 January 2015.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. and Zelenkauskaite, A. (2009). Symbolic capital in a virtual heterosexual market: Abbreviation and insertion in Italian iTV SMS. Written Communication, 26: 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19: 273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Myslín, M. and Gries, S. Th. (2010). k dixez? A corpus study of Spanish Internet orthography. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 25: 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellat, J-C. and Andrieux-Reix, N. (2006). Histoire d’E ou de la variation des usages graphiques à la différentiation réglée. Langue Française, 151: 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierozak, I. (2000). Approche sociolinguistique des pratiques discursives sur internet: ‘ge fé dais fotes si je vœux’. Revue française de linguistique appliquée, 5 : 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierozak, I. (2003). Le francais tchaté :Une étude en trois dimensions – sociolinguistique, syntaxique et graphique – d’usage IRC. Doctoral dissertation, Université d’Aix-Maseille I, France.Google Scholar
Rickard, P. (1993). A History of the French Language, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stark, E. (2015). ‘De l’oral dans l’écrit’? – Le profil variationnel des SMS (textos) et leur valeur pour la recherche linguistique. In: Jeppesen Kragh, K. and Lindschouw, J. (eds), Les variations diasystématiques et leurs interdépendances dans les langues romanes, Actes du Colloque DIA II à Copenhague. Strasbourg: ELiPhi, pp. 395–405.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22: 399–421.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (2006). Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (2012). Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tatossian, A. (2008). Typologie des procédés scripturaux des salons de clavardage en français chez les adolescents et les adultes. In: J. Habert, Durand, B. and Laks, B. (eds), Actes du 1er Congrès mondial de linguistique française. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française, pp. 2337–2352.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2011). Use and variation of French diacritics on an Internet dating site. Journal of French Language Studies, 21: 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. and Williams, L. (2007). De l’oral à l’électronique: La variation orthographique comme ressource sociostylistique et pragmatique dans le français électronique. Glottopol, 10: 56–69.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. and Williams, L. (2010). Orthographic variation in electronic French: The case of l’accent aigu. French Review, 83: 820–833.Google Scholar
Watts, F. (1991). Reflexions sur la proposition de reforme de l’orthographe et sa polemique. The French Review, 65: 84–90.Google Scholar
Werry, C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet relay chat. In: S. Herring, C. (ed), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural perspectives. Phildelphia: Benjamins, pp. 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, L. (2009). Sociolinguistic variation in French computer-mediated communication: A variable rule analysis of the negative particle ne. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14: 67–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing. In: Herring, S. C. (ed), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2010). Ciberpragmática 2.0. Nuevos Usos del Lenguaje en Internet. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Zelenkauskaite, A. (2017). Abbreviate and insert? Message length,,addressee and non-standard writing in Italian mobile texting and Facebook. Writing Systems Research, 9: 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelenkauskaite, A. and Gonzales, A. L. (2017). Non-standard typography use over time: Signs of a lack of literacy or symbolic capital? The Journal of Community Informatics, 13: 72–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelenkauskaite, A. and Herring, S. C. (2006). Gender encoding of typographical elements in Lithuanian and Croatian IRC. In: Sudweeks, F., Hrachovec, H. and Ess, C. (eds), Cultural Attitudes towards Technology and Communication 2006. Murdoch, Australia: School of Information Technology, Murdoch University, pp. 474–489.Google Scholar