The French language has some 1000 years of history and is widely distributed geographically. While we understand, in theory, that the French language cannot remain the same across time and place, when we witness a manifestation of this variation, we often react as if it were proof of degeneration. However, it is paradoxical to want the language to persist, but to oppose any change, since inaction would cause its loss. To meet the needs of the linguistic community and of a changing society, the language must also evolve and adapt.
In the words of linguist Marina Yaguello, “ [l]Linguistic change is generally experienced as decadence and not as progress, unlike what happens in other areas of social life.
This belief is hard to shake, especially for the written language. The appearance of writing itself, which is now the subject of a quasi-sacralization, is accompanied by apprehension. Some fears are superstitious: in ancient Egypt, the hieroglyphs of the vulture and the viper in tombs were mutilated so that they would not attack the soul of the deceased. Other fears are pragmatic: writing would harm memory, since it would no longer be necessary to memorize stories and other important facts. In the Phaedra Plato’s Socrates explains how writing, given as a gift to humans by the Egyptian god Theuth, would be, according to some, a threat to philosophy: “It is because writing, Phaedrus, has, just like painting, a serious drawback. Pictorial works appear to be alive; but, if you question them, they maintain a venerable silence. It is the same with written discourses. You would certainly believe that they speak like sensible people; but, if you want to ask them to explain to you what they say, they always answer you the same thing.”
A very contemporary fear concerns the harmful influence on our spelling skills that writing on social networks would have, particularly among young people.
Writing on social networks, through chat and text messages, which I will call electronic writing here, seeks to reproduce the immediacy and spontaneity of oral conversation. To do this, it draws on various processes: abbreviations, emoticons, punctuation that is more expressive than functional, etc. These processes are not all new: they were already found in comic strips, in handwritten notes, even in telegrams.
We cannot brandish the most spectacular errors and pretend that electronic writing is limited to them. As Marty Laforest says in his essay States of mind, states of language : “With enough copies, you will always find enough pearls to make a beautiful necklace.” Yes, there are spelling mistakes in electronic writing – more than elsewhere, because we write quickly and do not always proofread. Context is important: electronic messages are intended for loved ones, not for a teacher who must correct us. The fact remains that most of a text message exchange, like most of an assignment, does not contain mistakes.
The research is clear: electronic writing has no negative consequences on spelling skills. We adapt to the communication situation. Researcher Anaïs Tatossian recalls the conclusion of one of the first studies on the subject, conducted at Stanford University: “new technologies have no negative impact on writing skills.” Closer to home, in Quebec, Marie-Ève Gonthier and Stéphanie Leblanc studied the influence of chatting on first-cycle high school students. Conclusion: “The hypothesis that chatting would have an unfavorable influence on the mastery of written French has been disproved.” Of course, students are still learning the written code, make mistakes or commit clumsiness, and we must guide them in this process. But electronic writing is not the cause.
What is so disturbing about electronic writing is that it blurs the line between oral and written. Until not so long ago, writing was reserved for school and work, and therefore for a more formal register. It is now entering the friendly and family sphere, where the familiar register is more appropriate. We are uncomfortable with the incursion of oral into writing.
In reality, young people have never written as much as since socialization also takes place through social networks. When I was a teenager, there were still these origami folded letters that girls sent to each other discreetly under their desks… But the volume of the two mediums is in no way comparable.
It must also be admitted that the older we get, the more we pay attention to our spelling on social networks. I am sure I am not the only one who rereads my messages… Sociolinguist Françoise Gadet was surprised to see the extent to which text messages retain standardized spellings: “Speakers only hear oral text through the filter of writing. Even in verlan […]there are forms that are based on knowledge of the graphic word (luc for ass, à donf for à fond, [Seaps] for I don’t know…).
Even if it comes from a good intention, constantly criticizing young people, correcting mistakes in our teenager’s messages could have the opposite effect to that intended: if young people do not feel that they can play with the French language, they may turn to English for good.