Norm consciousness in the new media and the role of orthography - What's up, Switzerland? Final Workshop. 18th-20th October 2018, Zurich PD Dr ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Norm consciousness in the new media and the role of orthography. What's up, Switzerland? Final Workshop. 18th–20th October 2018, Zurich PD Dr. Silvia Natale & Dr. Etienne Morel
General remarks about orthography
> Determines how something is written correctly à set of
conventions
> Orthographic norms are usually laid down in an official body
of rules and regulations
> Orthographic norms are binding in schools and authorities
> High awareness of standards outside institutions (cf.
Dürscheid 2006: 166-167)
> Acceptance of orthographic standards is generally high à
high normative pressure
2
Orthographic deficiencies and stigmatization
«Wer nämlich
mit h schreibt
ist dämlich!»
“Those who learn to read and
write well are considered
successful, whereas those
who do not develop these
skills are seen as less
intelligent, lazy, or in some
other way deficient (St. Clair
and Sadlin 2004)»
3
General questions about orthography in
the new media
> What happens in texts of mobile communication that oscillate
between privacy and the public sphere?
> What is the impact of publicity and visibility of texts on
orthography (cfr. In Facebook)?
> Do users avoid orthographic errors in order to preserve the
public self image (Goffman 1967)?
> Or are we dealing with norm-free spaces that imply a rather
relaxed handling of orthographic norms?
> Are there language-specific differences with respect to the
asked questions?
4
Research questions
1. What importance do users of WhatsApp and social networks
attach to orthography in the new media?
2. What attitudes do users have towards deviations from
standard orthography?
3. What kind of normative behaviour (corrections) do users of
WhatsApp show with regard to their own spelling and the
spelling of their interlocuters?
4. How do users of WhatsApp estimate the effect of mobile
communication on language decay (Thurlow 2006,
Dürscheid 2016)?
5
Methodology: Online questionnaire
o n s
i
iat r
ev
l d ivity o
Italian
f u
r p ose creat
/ pu ity or
3 tio
n s iv
ri a e s
valanguages
German
e x pr French
a p hic le for
h o gr vehic
r o rt sa
e a
onsid elling 14) normative
0
gender
t c sp r 2
behaviour Questionnaire
i d no ard ü lle
d d m
We stan (Spitz
m
fro logies Attitudes
Personal
e o data
id
acceptability
of errors age
importance of level of
spelling education
6Distribution of the survey
> Launched via multilingual press releases (newspaper articles
and radio interviews)
> Distributed via postings on various social networks (e.g. on
the Facebook page of the University of Bern)
> N = 631
> N=251 German version
> N=278 French version
> N=102 Italian version
7Characteristics of participants
Gender Age
80 71.2 60
48.8
50
60 40 35.5
40 30
27.3 15.7
20
20 10
0 0
Men Women under 29 29-48 over 48
Education
50 45.3
40 31.6
30
20
10.4 7.3
10 5.3
0
University degree PhD Upper sec. level compl. apprenticeship Lower sec. level
8Results
Attitudes towards orthography
9Spelling mistakes generally annoying,
especially when publicity rises
> Majority of participants indicated that they find spelling
mistakes annoying:
— 42.2% (N =172) of participants found mistakes "very" annoying
— 19.1% (N =78) "rather" annoying
> The degree of publicity of the texts in which errors occur
seems to be important:
Mistakes “unacceptable”
50 45.9
40
30 24.3
20
10
0
Facebook WhatsApp
10Inacceptability of spelling mistakes:
Significant language-specific differences
19.8
Swiss German
40
19.4
Standard German
40
43.7
Italian
70.4
20.7
French
41.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
WhatsApp Facebook
11Importance attachted to own spelling
in WhatsApp (in %) «great» and «rather great»
Swiss German 46.8
Standard German «Dialect writing is not uniform,
64.5and
norms for dialect orthography appear to
be nonexistent (...). As a result, each
chatter tends to employ his/her own
Italian written dialect conventions» 64.8
(Siebenhaar
2008: 2)
French 76.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
12Results
Corrective behaviour in WhatsApp
13Self-corrections vary significantly depending
on language
Swiss German
42.3
Standard German
50.8
Italian
69
French
73.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
(«always» and «often», in %)
14Self-corrections: Age and intimacy are
relevant
The youngest age category is Positive self-image
most inclined to self-correction. (Goffman 1967)
60
49.7
50
40 37.2
30
21.5
20 18.1
10
0
close friends family members acquaintances collegues
15Correction of the interlocutor: Significant language-
specific variations («always» and «often», in %)
35
30.9
30
25
20
15.7
15
10
6.6
5
2.6
0
French Italian Standard German Swiss German
-5
16Correction of the interlocutor: Gender,
education and age
> Gender and educational background are not relevant
> Age is relevant:
30
25.9
25
20
15 12.2 11.5
10
5
0
under 29 29-48 over 48
17Correction of the interlocutor: Degree of
intimacy
80
70
61.9
60 58.1
50
40
30
20 17.1
14.3
10
0
family members close friends acquaintances collegues
18Language decay
ti c
t i v e u is ith
n e ga l i n g
d w
r th e a
Daily Mail, September 2007
s e
en o o n al y
o s i ti v
g e l l y a n i e1s5 ; i th
e p r i ti n ir ibca e l. 2rt0 t w
e r th a l w m h pe d bet ape no
h i t e t lns pro nd
Neit s of dig proven
Focus, Dezember 2012
l d r a skoe
a h
u
c a
c t r l y u ; M s i fi )
effe e clea . s2h0o15 ich e c 017
n b t a l
s h - s p 2
ca i c o e
t cu 3)., w te r a r k
n o 1 n s t
(Ber ihjeenf 2i0ptio regi & S
e r r
Verh T esc rd to sse ay.
d a w a ec
g
20 Minuten, April 2015
re ebe to d r
(U a rd
re g
Il corriere della sera, Februar 2017
19«Mobile communication has a negative
effect on language»
45
41.3
40 38.4
36.9
35
35 33.3
30.2
30
25.5
25
20.2 20.6
20
15
10 7.9
6.4
4.3
5
0
I agree I rather agree I don't agree I don't know
under 28 29-48 years 49 years and older
20Conclusions
> Spelling mistakes generally estimated as negative
> Intolerance increases with degree of publicity
> Differences with regard to attitudes and normative practices
differ with respect to first language and age
> Our partcipants have a relatively high awareness of norm
orientation à reject neglecting writing forms
Desiderata:
> Test results with informants with a lower education
21Thank you for your attention!
22Bibliography
> Aitchison, Jean (2013). Language change. Progress or decay? Cambridge approaches to linguistics. Oxford: Cambridge University Press,
4th ed.
> Bernicot, Josie, Alain Bert-Erboul, Antonine Goumi & Olga Volckaert-Legrier (2015). Analyse d'un corpus longitudinal de SMS produits par
de jeunes adolescents. TRANEL 63: 15–29.
> Collister, Lauren B. (2011). *-repair in Online Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3): 918–921.
> Dürscheid, Christa (2012). Einführung in die Schriftlinguistik. Studienbücher zur Linguistik. Bd. 8. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
> Dürscheid, Christa & Karina Frick (2014). Keyboard-to-Screen-Kommunikation gestern und heute: SMS und WhatsApp im Vergleich.
Networx 64.
> Gallmann, Peter & Horst Sitta (1996). Handbuch Rechtschreiben. Zürich: Lehrmittelverlag des Kantons Zürich, [3. Aufl., mit kleinen
Korrekturen].
> Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction ritual. Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine.
> Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher (1994). Schriftlichkeit und Sprache. In Schrift und Schriftlichkeit / Writing and its Use. Ein
interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung / An Interdisciplinary Handbook of International Research, Hartmut Günther & Otto
Ludwig (Hgg.), 587–604. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
> Maskens, Lénaïs, Louise-Amélie Cougnon, Sophie Roekhaut & Cédrick Fairon (2015). Nouveaux médias et orthographe. Incompétence
ou pluricompétence ? Discours [en ligne] 16.
> Meredith, J. & E. Stokoe (2014). Repair. Comparing Facebook 'chat' with spoken interaction. Discourse & Communication 8 (2): 181–207.
> Morel, Etienne (in Vorb.). « Pas d'place pour les fote d'ortho » : de ‘l’écriture non-standard’ à l’accomplissement situé des normes
langagières dans la communication par WhatsApp. In L'image des langues, Marinette Matthey (Hg.).
> Preston, D. R. (2004). Folk metalanguage. In Metalanguage. Social and Ideological Perspectives. Language, Power and Social Process
[LPSP]. Band 11, Adam Jaworski, Nikolas Coupland & Dariusz Galasinski (Hgg.), 75–101. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
> Siebenhaar, Beat (2008). Quantitative Approaches to Linguistic Variation in IRC: Implications for Qualitative Research.
Language@Internet (5).
> Storrer, Angelika (2013). Sprachverfall durch internetbasierte Kommunikation? Linguistische Erklärungsansätze - empirische Befunde. In
Sprachverfall? Dynamik - Wandel - Variation. Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache. Band 2013, Albrecht Plewnia & Andreas Witt
(Hgg.), 171–196. Berlin: De Gruyter.
> Ueberwasser, Simone & Elisabeth Stark (2017). What’s up, Switzerland? A corpus-based research project in a multilingual country.
Linguistik online 84 (5): 105–126.
> Verheijen, Lieke (2013). The Effects of Text Messaging and Instant Messaging on Literacy. English Studies 94 (5): 582–602.
23You can also read
