Hostname: page-component-669899f699-swprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T05:30:26.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

#JeSuisCirconflexe: The French spelling reform of 1990 and 2016 reactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2019

Emma Humphries
Emma Humphries*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
*
Email: Emma.Humphries@nottingham.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In February 2016 the French spelling reform of 1990, which introduced changes to approximately 2,000 words, became the object of discussion online, after it was announced that the new spellings would be included in textbooks from September. Analysing a corpus of tweets, containing key terms from the online discussion, JeSuisCirconflexe; ognon and réforme orthographe, this study gives an insight into the reactions to this governmental linguistic intervention, the recurring themes in their discourse and how this can be interpreted as prescriptive or purist behaviour. Although previous studies have extensively analysed reactions to the 1996 spelling reform in Germany, little research has considered online lay-reactions to the French reform. Given observations that online interactions differ in many ways to equivalent offline interactions, this study can form a point of contrast to previous studies conducted in offline contexts, thereby enriching the existing literature in this field. It is also often claimed that France is a country in which linguistic purism is deeply entrenched; this article will seek further evidence for these claims.

Keywords

#JeSuisCirconflexeLanguage InterventionMetalinguistic discoursePrescriptivismPurismRectifications de l’orthographeRectifications orthographiquesSpelling reformTwitter
Type
Article
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , November 2019 , pp. 305 - 321
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Académie française. (1990). Les rectifications de l’orthographe. http://www.academie-francaise.fr/sites/academie-francaise.fr/files/rectifications_1990.pdf retrieved 12 December 2017.Google Scholar
Académie française. (2016). L’Académie française et la « réforme de l’orthographe ». http://www.academie-francaise.fr/actualites/lacademie-francaise-et-la-reforme-de-lorthographe retrieved 12 December 2017.Google Scholar
Aïssaoui, M. and Corty, B. (2016). Hélène Carrère d’Encausse: «L’Académie s’oppose à toute réforme de l’orthographe». http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2016/02/12/01016-20160212ARTFIG00297-helene-carrere-d-encausse-l-academie-s-oppose-a-toute-reforme-de-l-orthographe.php retrieved 12 December 2017.Google Scholar
Ameka, F. K. (2017). The uselessness of the useful: language standardisation and variation in multilingual contexts. In: Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. Percy, C. (eds.), Prescription and Tradition in Language: Establishing Standards across Time and Space. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 71–87.Google Scholar
Arrivé, M. (1994). Les problèmes de l’orthographe française aujourd’hui. Tréma, 6: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourhis, R. Y. (1982). Language policies and language attitudes: le monde de la Francophonie. In: Ryan, E. B. and Giles, H. (eds.), Attitudes Towards Language Variation: Social and Applied Contexts. London: Arnold, pp. 34–62.Google Scholar
Casale, S., Fiovaranti, G. and Caplan, S. (2015). Online disinhibition: precursors and outcomes. Journal of Media Psychology, 27: 170–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catach, N. (1993). The reform of the writing system. In: Sanders, C. (ed.), French Today: Language in its Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerquiglini, B. (1996). L’accent circonflexe: Archéologie d’une passion. In: Alonso Montilla, E. Bruña Cuevas, M. Muñoz Romero, M. (eds.), La lingüística francesa: gramática, historia, epistemología, Tomo I. Sevilla: Grupo Andaluz de Pragmatica.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (2017). Prescriptivism and writing systems. In: Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. Percy, C. (eds.), Prescription and Tradition in Language: Establishing Standards across Time and Space. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 39–56.Google Scholar
Culture RP. (2013). Usages et pratiques de Twitter en France. http://culture-rp.com/2013/05/14/usages-et-pratiques-de-twitter-en-france/ retrieved 12 December 2017.Google Scholar
Dargent, F. (2015). Orthographe: les cinq bêtes noires des Français. http://www.lefigaro.fr/livres/2015/03/12/03005-20150312ARTFIG00383-orthographe-les-cinq-betes-noires-des-francais.php retrieved 12 December 2017.Google Scholar
Dupriez, D. (2009). La nouvelle orthographe en pratique. Brussels: De Boeck Supérieur.Google Scholar
Gardiner, B., Mansfield, M., Anderson, I., Holder, J., Louter, D. and Ulmanu, M. (2016). The Dark Side of Guardian Comments. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments retrieved 12 December 2017.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. and Spilioti, T. (2016). The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goosse, A. (1991). Mélanges de grammaire et de lexicologie françaises. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.Google Scholar
Groupe RO. (2012). Les francophones et les rectifications orthographiques de 1990. État des connaissances et des usages en 2010. Glottopol, 19: 130–148.Google Scholar
Hohenhaus, P. (2005). Elements of traditional and “reverse” purism in relation to computer-mediated communication. In: Langer, N. and Davies, W., (eds.), Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Language. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 204–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, S. (2005). Spelling Trouble? Language, Ideology and the Reform of German Orthography. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. H., Chik, A. and Hafner, C. A. (2015). Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing Discourse Analysis in the Digital Age. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, W. J. (1999). Images of Language: Six Essays on German Attitudes to European Languages from 1500 to 1800. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, J. E. (1987). Eloquence and Power: The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langer, N. (2001). The Rechtschreibreform: A lesson in linguistic purism. German as a Foreign Language, 3: 15–35.Google Scholar
Langer, N. and Davies, W. (2011). Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Languages. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Le Hanaff, L. (2016). Réforme de l’orthographe : 10 mots qui vont changer à la rentrée. http://lci.tf1.fr/france/societe/reforme-orthographique-10-mots-qui-vont-changer-a-la-rentree-8712574.html retrieved 23 September 2016.Google Scholar
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lodge, R. A. (1993). French, from Dialect to Standard. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in Language. Investigating Language Prescription and Standardization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Molyneux, L. (2015). What journalists retweet: opinion, humor, and brand development on Twitter. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, 16: 920–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ousselin, E. (2004). Aux accents, citoyens! La résistance à la réforme de l’orthographe. The French Review, 77: 490–499.Google Scholar
Paveau, M.-A. (2017). L’analyse du discours numérique : Dictionnaire des formes et des pratiques. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Paveau, M.-A. andRosier, R. (2008). La langue française: passions et polémiques. Paris: Vuibert.Google Scholar
Reyes, A. (2013). Don’t touch my language: attitudes toward institutional language reforms. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14: 337–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricento, T. (2009). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Russell, M. A. (2013). Mining the Social Web. California: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
Thomas, G. (1991). Linguistic Purism. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Vallaud-Belkacem, N. (2016). Quelques éléments importants sur l’orthographe et le décret du 6 décembre 1990. http://www.najat-vallaud-belkacem.com/2016/02/04/quelques-elements-importants-sur-lorthographe-et-le-decret-du-6-decembre-1990 retrieved 12 December 2017.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. (2010). The (slightly more) productive use of ne in Montreal French chat. Language Sciences, 32: 447–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, O. (2016). Linguistic Purism: Language Attitudes in France and Quebec. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, F. (1991). Réflexions sur la proposition de réforme de l’orthographe et sa polémique. The French Review, 65: 84–90.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2000). Mythical strands in the ideology of prescriptivism. In: Wright, L. (ed.), The Development of Standard English 1300-1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar