When correct spelling hardly matters: Teenagers’ production and perception of spelling error corrections in Dutch social media writing
-
Hanne Surkyn
,
Dominiek Sandra
Abstract
The present paper examines teenagers’ production and perception of spelling error corrections (e. g., *zij for zei) in online messaging. It discusses both a quantitative and qualitative analysis of spelling corrections in a large corpus of private online conversations between Flemish adolescents and the results of an online survey with a similar target group. Our study reveals that teenagers hardly correct their own spelling errors and those of their peers in informal social media writing. Several factors play a role in whether or not they rectify an error, such as the type of error and their socio-demographic profile. In general, adolescents tend to have a negative attitude towards correcting other people’s spelling mistakes. Consequently, teenagers often perform this face-threatening act (FTA) to tease or irritate their interlocutor or by way of payback for another FTA. Strikingly, even in non-conflictual contexts, errors are generally pointed out quite bluntly, though in some cases, both the error-maker and the interlocutor engage in damage control when the error has been acknowledged by the former. By conducting this research, we can achieve a better understanding of the sociopragmatic mechanisms underlying error perception and error handling in a social media context that generally embraces nonstandard writing.
Zusammenfassung
Der vorliegende Artikel untersucht die Produktion und Wahrnehmung von Rechtschreibfehlern (z. B. *zij anstatt zei) in der Onlinekommunikation von Jugendlichen. Diskutiert werden sowohl die quantitative und qualitative Analyse von Rechtschreibfehlern in einem großen Korpus privater Onlinekonversationen zwischen flämischen Jugendlichen als auch die Ergebnisse einer Onlinebefragung mit einer ähnlichen Zielgruppe. Die Analyse zeigt, dass Jugendliche in informellen Unterhaltungen in sozialen Medien kaum die eigenen Rechtschreibfehler und die anderer korrigieren. Ob ein Fehler korrigiert wird oder nicht, hängt von mehreren Faktoren ab, wie etwa der Art des Fehlers und dem eigenen sozio-demografischen Profil. Als allgemeine Tendenz lässt sich feststellen, dass Jugendliche eine negative Haltung gegenüber dem Korrigieren der Rechtschreibfehler anderer Personen haben. Daher verwenden Jugendliche diesen face-threatening act (FTA) häufig, um das Gegenüber zu ärgern oder zu verwirren, oder auch als Heimzahlung für einen vorhergehenden FTA. Bemerkenswert ist, dass Fehler selbst in konfliktfreien Situationen sehr offen und direkt benannt werden, auch wenn die den Fehler machende Person und ihr Gegenüber in einigen Fällen gemeinsam um Schadensbegrenzung bemüht sind, wenn erstere anerkennt, einen Fehler gemacht zu haben. Die vorliegende Studie ermöglicht ein besseres Verständnis der sozio-pragmatischen Mechanismen, die der Wahrnehmung und dem Umgang mit Fehlern im Kontext der sozialen Medien zugrunde liegen, wo vom Standard abweichende Schreibweisen generell eher akzeptiert werden.
Abstracto
Este trabajo examina la producción y la percepción de errores ortográficos (por ejemplo, *zij en lugar de zei) por parte de parte de adolescentes en servicios de mensajería en línea. Se discuten tanto el análisis cualitativo y cuantitativo de un gran corpus de conversaciones privadas entre adolescentes flamencos como los resultados de una encuesta en línea dirigida a un público del mismo perfil. Nuestro estudio muestra que los adolescentes apenas corrigen sus propios errores ortográficos y los de sus compañeros en la escritura informal de redes sociales. Varios factores juegan un papel a la hora de rectificar o no un error, como el tipo de error y su perfil sociodemográfico. En general, los adolescentes tienden a tener una actitud negativa hacia la corrección de los errores ortográficos de otras personas. En consecuencia, los adolescentes a menudo realizan este acto de amenaza de imagen para burlarse o irritar a su interlocutor o a modo de recompensa por otro acto de habla amenazante. Sorprendentemente, incluso en contextos no amenazantes, los errores generalmente se señalan sin rodeos, aunque en algunos casos, tanto el que comete errores como el interlocutor participan en el control de daños cuando el error ha sido reconocido por el primero. Al realizar esta investigación, podemos lograr una mejor comprensión de los mecanismos sociopragmáticos en la percepción del error y el manejo del error en un contexto de redes sociales que generalmente abarca la escritura no estándar.
References
Anderson, Joel R. 2019. The moderating role of socially desirable responding in implicit-explicit attitudes toward asylum seekers. International Journal of Psychology 54(1). 1–7.10.1002/ijop.12439Search in Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2011. Language change and digital media: a review of conceptions and evidence. In Tore Kristiansen & Nikolas Coupland (eds.), Standard languages and language standards in a changing Europe, 145-161. Oslo: Novus.Search in Google Scholar
Beisswenger, Michael & Steffen Pappert. 2019. How to be polite with emojis: a pragmatic analysis of face work strategies in an online learning environment. EuJAL 7(2). 1–29.10.1515/eujal-2019-0003Search in Google Scholar
De Belder, Marijke. 2021, April 27. Spelling mag u het leven niet zuur maken [Spelling should not make your life difficult]. De Standaard. <https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20210426_97669484>Search in Google Scholar
Boland, Julie E. & Robin Queen. 2016. If you’re house is still available, send me an email: Personality influences reactions to written errors in email messages. PLoS ONE 11(3). e0149885.10.1371/journal.pone.0149885Search in Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina B. 2013. Unpacking “self”: Repair and Epistemics in Conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 76(4). 314–342.10.1177/0190272513498398Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar
Burgoon, Michael & Gerald R. Miller. 1985. An expectancy interpretation of language and persuasion. In Howard Giles & Robert N. St. Clair (eds.), The social and psychological contexts of language, 199–229. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9780429436178-8Search in Google Scholar
Chamalaun, Robert, Anna Bosman & Mirjam Ernestus. 2021. The role of grammar in spelling homophonous regular verbs. Written Language and Literacy 24(1). 38–80.10.1075/wll.00047.chaSearch in Google Scholar
Chang, Carrie Y. 2016. EFL reviewers’ emoticon use in asynchronous computer-mediated peer response. Computers and Composition 40. 1–18. 10.1016/j.compcom.2016.03.008Search in Google Scholar
Darics, Erika. 2010. Politeness in computer-mediated discourse of a virtual team. Journal of Politeness Research 6(1). 129–150. 10.1515/jplr.2010.007Search in Google Scholar
Deprez, Wouter. 2021, April 26. Weg met die -D [Get rid of that -D]. De Standaard. <https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20210425_97932968>Search in Google Scholar
Dresner, Eli & Susan C. Herring. 2010. Functions of the non-verbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory 20(3). 249–268.10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01362.xSearch in Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell H., Joni R. Jackson, Bridget C. Dunton & Carol J. Williams. 1995. Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(6). 1013–1027.10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1013Search in Google Scholar
Figueredo, Lauren & Connie K. Varnhagen. 2005. Didn’t you run the spell checker? Effects of type of spelling error and use of a spell checker on perceptions of the author. Reading Psychology 26(4–5). 441–458.10.1080/02702710500400495Search in Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Trevor Benjamin & Harrie Mazeland. 2013. Conversation Analysis and Repair Organization: Overview. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1310 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1314Search in Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea & Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm. 2006. Negotiation of face in web chats. Multilingua 25(3). 293–321.10.1515/MULTI.2006.017Search in Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H. 1983. Aggravated correction and disagreement in children’s conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 7. 657–677.10.1016/0378-2166(83)90089-9Search in Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, Laura & Melissa Baralt. 2014. Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36(1). 1–37.10.1017/S0272263113000363Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City/New York: Doubleday.Search in Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 2001. Computer-mediated discourse. In Deborah Tannen, Deborah Schiffrin & Heidi Hamilton (eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis, 612–634. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470753460.ch32Search in Google Scholar
Hilte, Lisa. 2019. The social in social media writing: The impact of age, gender and social class indicators on adolescents’ informal online writing practices. Antwerp: University of Antwerp dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Hilte, Lisa, Reinhild Vandekerckhove & Walter Daelemans. 2019. Adolescents’ perceptions of social media writing: Has non-standard become the new standard? European journal of applied linguistics 7(2). 189–224.10.1515/eujal-2019-0005Search in Google Scholar
Hilte, Lisa, Reinhild Vandekerckhove & Walter Daelemans. 2020. Linguistic accommodation in teenagers’ social media writing: Convergence patterns in mixed-gender conversations. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 29(2). 241–268.10.1080/09296174.2020.1807853Search in Google Scholar
Hilte, Lisa, Reinhild Vandekerckhove & Walter Daelemans. 2021. How do interlocutors in instant messaging influence each other’s writing style? Three case studies on accommodation in teenagers’ chat conversations. In Iris Hendrickx, Lieke Verheijen & Lidwien van de Wijngaert (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Conference on CMC and Social Media Corpora for the Humanities (CMC-Corpora 2021), 48–53). Nijmegen. Search in Google Scholar
Hiroux, Dries. 2021, April 19. Moet de dt-regel op de schop? Kristien Hemmerechts: “Als je op spelling focust, verlam je mensen” [Should the dt rule be abolished? Kristien Hemmerechts: “If you focus on spelling, you paralyze people“]. vrt.be <https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2021/04/19/discussie-dt/>Search in Google Scholar
Jansen, Frank & Ellen de Roo. 2012. Fouten tellen. De invloed van de dichtheid van dt-fouten op de lezerswaardering [Counting errors. The influence of the density of dt-errors on reader appreciation]. Neerlandistiek, december 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.bntl.nl/files/279775/Jansen%20&%20De%20Roo%202012.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Jansen, Frank & Daniël Janssen. 2016. Fatale spelfouten? Een experimenteel onderzoek naar de manier waarop spelfouten in sollicitatie- en sponsorbrieven de besluitvorming beïnvloeden. [Fatal spelling errors? An experimental study of how spelling errors in application and sponsorship letters influence decision making]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 38(1). 81–106.10.5117/TVT2016.1.JANSSearch in Google Scholar
Johnson, Adam C., Joshua Wilson & Rod D. Roscoe. 2017. College student perceptions of writing errors, text quality, and author characteristics. Assessing Writing 34. 72–87.10.1016/j.asw.2017.10.002Search in Google Scholar
Kitade, Keiko. 2000. L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in internet chat, Computer Assisted Language Learning 13(2). 143–166.10.1076/0958-8221(200004)13:2;1-D;FT143Search in Google Scholar
Koh, Young-Ihn. 2007. ESL children’s error recognition and correction patterns in a synchronous CMC context. English Teaching 62(4). 257–278. Retrieved from: http://kate.bada.cc/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/kate_62_4_12.pdf10.15858/engtea.62.4.200712.257Search in Google Scholar
Kreiner, David S., Summer D. Schnakenberg, Angela G. Green, Michael J. Costello & Anis F. McClin. 2002. Effects of spelling errors on the perception of writers. The Journal of General Psychology 129(1). 5–17. 10.1080/00221300209602029Search in Google Scholar
Meredith, Joanne & Elizabeth Stokoe. 2014. Repair: Comparing Facebook ‘chat’ with spoken interaction. Discourse & Communication 8(2). 181-20710.1177/1750481313510815Search in Google Scholar
Mitchell, Gregory & Philip E. Tetlock. 2015. Implicit Attitude Measures. In Robert A. Scott & Stephen M. Kosslyn (eds.), Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1–14. New York: Wiley.10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0177Search in Google Scholar
Moerman Michael. 1977. The preference for self-correction in aTai conversational corpus. Language 53(4). 872–882.10.2307/412915Search in Google Scholar
Park, Jung-ran. 2008. Linguistic politeness and face-work in computer mediated communication, Part 2: An application of the theoretical framework. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(14). 2199–2209.10.1002/asi.20926Search in Google Scholar
Raedts, Mariet & Irene Roozen. 2015. “De terughaalactie geld alleen voor de hierboven afgebelede pizza’s geldig.” Het effect van taalfouten in product recall-advertenties [“The recall is only valid for the pizzas pictured above.” The effect of language errors in product recall ads]. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap 43(3). 292–312.10.5117/2015.043.003.292Search in Google Scholar
Roozen, Irene, & Mariet Raedts. 2021. The effects of language errors in service recovery communication of customer’s hotel perceptions and booking intentions. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism. 1–24.10.1080/1528008X.2021.1897919Search in Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek. 2021 a, March 6. Schaf de dt-regels af [Abolish the dt rules]. De Standaard. <https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20210305_98174151>Search in Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek. 2021 b, April 24. Met deze nieuwe regels maak je nooit meer dt-fouten [With these new rules, you will never make verb spelling errors again]. De Standaard. < https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20210423_97737566>Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A., Gail Jefferson & Harvey Sacks. 1977. The Preference for Self- Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language 53(2). 361–382.10.1353/lan.1977.0041Search in Google Scholar
Skovholt, Karianne, Anette Grønning & Anne Kankaanranta. 2014. The communicative functions of emoticons in workplace e-mails: :-). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19(4). 780–797. 10.1111/jcc4.12063Search in Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2007. Comparative studies in Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 36. 229-24410.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094313Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Bryan. 2008. Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the messing self-repair. Language Learning & Technology 12(1). 85–103.Search in Google Scholar
Surkyn, Hanne, Sandra, Dominiek & Vandekerckhove, Reinhild. 2022. Adolescents and verb spelling: The role of gender and educational track in rule knowledge and linguistic attitudes. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 11. 10.51751/dujal10932Search in Google Scholar
Surkyn, Hanne, Sandra, Dominiek, Hilte, Lisa & Vandekerckhove, Reinhild. in press. Gender accommodation in teenagers’ spelling of regular verb homophones on social media. Nederlandse Taalkunde. Search in Google Scholar
Surkyn, Hanne, Vandekerckhove, Reinhild & Sandra, Dominiek. 2019. Errors outside the lab: The interaction of a psycholinguistic and a sociolinguistic variable in the production of verb spelling errors in informal computer-mediated communication. In Julien Longhi & Claudia Marinica (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference on CMC and Social Media Corpora for the Humanities (CMC-Corpora 2019), 59–62. Paris. 10.1515/eujal-2019-0032Search in Google Scholar
Surkyn, Hanne, Vandekerckhove, Reinhild & Sandra, Dominiek. 2020. From experiment to real-life data: Social factors determine the rate of spelling errors on rule-governed verb homophones but not the size of the homophone dominance effect. The Mental Lexicon 15(3). 422–463. 10.1075/ml.20006.surSearch in Google Scholar
Surkyn, Hanne, Vandekerckhove, Reinhild & Sandra, Dominiek. 2021. The impact of analogical effects and social factors on the spelling of partially homophonous verb forms in informal social media writing. Written Language & Literacy 24(1). 1–37. 10.1075/wll.00046.surSearch in Google Scholar
Uzum, Bryan. 2010. An investigation of alignment in CMC from a sociocognitive perspective. CALICO Journal 28(1). 135–155.10.11139/cj.28.1.135-155Search in Google Scholar
Vandergriff, Ilona. 2014. A pragmatic investigation of emoticon use in nonnative/native speaker text chat. Language@Internet 11. Retrieved from: https://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2014/vandergriffSearch in Google Scholar
Van der Zanden, Tess, Alexander P. Schouten, Maria B. J. Mos & Emiel J. Krahmer. 2020. Impression formation on online dating sites: Effects of language errors in profile texts on perceptions of profile owners’ attractiveness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 37(3). 758–778.10.1177/0265407519878787Search in Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. (Host). 2021-present. Niets is erger, maar ook normaler dan een dt-fout [Nothing is worse but also more normal than a verb spelling error] [Audio podcast]. De Standaard. <https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20210427_95254184>Search in Google Scholar
Varnhagen, Connie K. 2000. Shoot the messenger and disregard the message? Children’s attitudes toward spelling. Reading Psychology 21(2). 115–128.10.1080/02702710050084446Search in Google Scholar
Verhaert, Nina, Ellen Danckaert & Dominiek Sandra. 2016. The dual role of homophone dominance. Why homophone intrusions on regular verb forms so often go unnoticed. The Mental Lexicon 11(1). 1–25. 10.1075/ml.11.1.01verSearch in Google Scholar
Appendix
Frequency of self-correction vs. other-correction (Survey)
| Never | Sometimes | Often | |
| Self-correction | 46 (90.50) | 118 (99.50) | 77 (51.00) |
| Other-correction | 135 (90.50) | 81 (99.50) | 25 (51.00) |
X2 = 77.15, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .4
Self-corrections: boys vs. girls (Corpus)
| Number of self-corrections | Number of tokens | |
| Boys | 12 (20.02) | 774,530 (774,521.98) |
| Girls | 49 (40.98) | 1,585,587 (1,585,595.02) |
X2 = 4.78, p = .03, Cramer’s V = .001
Self-corrections: GE vs. TE vs. PE (Corpus)
| Number of self-corrections | Number of tokens | |
| GE | 25 (18.38) | 711,076 (711,082.62) |
| TE | 30 (28.19) | 1,090,580 (1,090,581.81) |
| PE | 6 (14.43) | 558,461 (558,452.57) |
X2 = 7.43, p = .02, Cramer’s V = .002
Self-corrections: Grade 2 vs. Grade 3 (Corpus)
| Number of self-corrections | Number of tokens | |
| Grade 2 | 30 (30.75) | 1,189,661 (1,189,660.25) |
| Grade 3 | 31 (30.25) | 1,170,456 (1,170,456.75) |
X2 = 0.037, p = .85, Cramer’s V = .0001
Frequency of self-correction: boys vs. girls (Survey)
| Never | Sometimes | Often | |
| Boys | 24 (20.61) | 54 (52.88) | 30 (34.51) |
| Girls | 22 (25.39) | 64 (65.12) | 47 (42.49) |
X2 = 2.12, p = .35, Cramer’s V = .09
Frequency of self-correction: GE vs. TE (Survey)
| Never | Sometimes | Often | |
| GE (Grade 3) | 9 (13.23) | 35 (38.26) | 33 (25.51) |
| TE (Grade 3) | 19 (14.77) | 46 (42.74) | 21 (28.49) |
X2 = 7.26, p = .03, Cramer’s V = .2
Frequency of self-correction: Grade 2 vs. Grade 3 (Survey)
| Never | Sometimes | Often | |
| Grade 2 (GE) | 18 (13.59) | 37 (36.23) | 23 (28.18) |
| Grade 3 (GE) | 9 (13.41) | 35 (35.77) | 33 (27.82) |
X2 = 4.83, p = .09, Cramer’s V = .18
Other-corrections: boys vs. girls (Corpus)
| Number of other-corrections | Number of tokens | |
| Boys | 11 (10.50) | 774,530 (774,530.50) |
| Girls | 21 (21.50) | 1,585,587 (1,585,586.50) |
X2 = 0.035, p = .85, Cramer’s V = .0001
Other-corrections: GE vs. TE vs. PE (Corpus)
| Number of other-corrections | Number of tokens | |
| GE | 9 (9.64) | 711,076 (711,075.36) |
| TE | 18 (14.79) | 1,090,580 (1,090,583.21) |
| PE | 5 (7.57) | 558,461 (558,458.43) |
X2 = 1.61, p = .45, Cramer’s V = .0008
Other-corrections: Grade 2 vs. Grade 3 (Corpus)
| Number of other-corrections | Number of tokens | |
| Grade 2 | 17 (16.13) | 1,189,661 (1,189,661.87) |
| Grade 3 | 15 (15.87) | 1,170,456 (1,170,455.13) |
X2 = 0.09, p = .76, Cramer’s V = .0002
Frequency of other-correction: boys vs. girls (Survey)
| Never | Sometimes | Often | |
| Boys | 69 (60.50) | 26 (36.30) | 13 (11.20) |
| Girls | 66 (74.50) | 55 (44.70) | 12 (13.80) |
X2 = 7.98, p = .02, Cramer’s V = .2
Frequency of other-correction: GE vs. TE (Survey)
| Never | Sometimes | Often | |
| GE (Grade 3) | 41 (42.52) | 25 (27.40) | 11 (7.09) |
| TE (Grade 3) | 49 (47.48) | 33 (30.60) | 4 (7.91) |
X2 = 4.60, p = .10, Cramer’s V = .17
Frequency of other-correction: Grade 2 vs. Grade 3 (Survey)
| Never | Sometimes | Often | |
| Grade 2 (GE) | 45 (43.28) | 23 (24.15) | 10 (10.57) |
| Grade 3 (GE) | 41 (42.72) | 25 (23.85) | 11 (10.43) |
X2 = 0.31, p = .86, Cramer’s V = .04
Gender assessment of other-corrector: boys vs. girls (Survey)
| Boy | Girl | I don’t know | |
| Boys | 7 (6.14) | 32 (32.12) | 38 (38.74) |
| Girls | 6 (6.86) | 36 (35.88) | 44 (43.26) |
X2 = 0.26, p = .88, Cramer’s V = .04
Gender assessment of other-corrector: GE vs. TE (Survey)
| Boy | Girl | I don’t know | |
| GE (Grade 3) | 8 (6.14) | 29 (32.12) | 40 (38.74) |
| TE (Grade 3) | 5 (6.86) | 39 (35.88) | 42 (43.26) |
X2 = 1.72, p = .42, Cramer’s V = .1
Gender assessment of other-corrector: Grade 2 vs. Grade 3 (Survey)
| Boy | Girl | I don’t know | |
| Grade 2 (GE) | 5 (6.54) | 29 (29.19) | 44 (42.27) |
| Grade 3 (GE) | 8 (6.46) | 29 (28.81) | 40 (41.73) |
X2 = 0.88, p = .65, Cramer’s V = .08
Educational Track assessment of other-corrector: GE vs. TE (Survey)
| GE | TE or PE | I don’t know | |
| GE (Grade 3) | 51 (49.13) | 1 (5.67) | 25 (22.20) |
| TE (Grade 3) | 53 (54.87) | 11 (6.33) | 22 (24.80) |
X2 =8.09, p = .018, Cramer’s V = .22
Educational Track assessment of other-corrector: boys vs. girls (Survey)
| GE | TE or PE | I don’t know | |
| Boys | 64 (70.36) | 8 (7.62) | 36 (30.02) |
| Girls | 93 (86.64) | 9 (9.38) | 31 (36.98) |
X2 = 3.23, p = .20, Cramer’s V = .16
Educational Track assessment of other-corrector: Grade 2 vs. Grade 3 (Survey)
| GE | TE or PE | I don’t know | |
| Grade 2 (GE) | 53 (52.34) | 5 (3.02) | 20 (22.65) |
| Grade 3 (GE) | 51 (51.66) | 1 (2.98) | 25 (22.35) |
X2 = 3.25, p = .20, Cramer’s V = .14
Age assessment of other-corrector: boys vs. girls (Survey)
| 14 or younger | 15-18 | Older than 18 | |
| Boys | 25 (16.67) | 33 (39.65) | 24 (25.68) |
| Girls | 12 (20.33) | 55 (48.35) | 33 (31.32) |
X2 = 9.80, p < .01, Cramer’s V = .2
Age assessment of other-corrector: Grade 2 vs. Grade 3 (Survey)
| 14 or younger | 15-18 | Older than 18 | |
| Grade 2 (GE) | 14 (11.61) | 17 (21.82) | 21 (18.57) |
| Grade 3 (GE) | 11 (13.39) | 30 (25.18) | 19 (21.43) |
X2 = 3.50, p = .17, Cramer’s V = .18
Age assessment of other-corrector: GE vs. TE (Survey)
| 14 or younger | 15-18 | Older than 18 | |
| GE (Grade 3) | 11 (10.62) | 30 (32.77) | 19 (16.62) |
| TE (Grade 3) | 12 (12.38) | 41 (38.23) | 17 (19.38) |
X2 = 1.10, p = .58, Cramer’s V = .09
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Frontmatter
- Co-constructing devices in narrative sequences of multilingual preschool children
- Exploring multilingual writers in secondary education: insights from a trilingual corpus
- Vocabulary Instruction in Textbooks of Italian as a Foreign Language: A Descriptive Analysis
- Passive Sentences and Abstract Agents in German School Books
- When correct spelling hardly matters: Teenagers’ production and perception of spelling error corrections in Dutch social media writing
- The teachers’ perspective on teaching languages to Polish seniors
- The use of the semi-lexical word ‘while’ by non-native (Polish) and native users of English based on corpora studies
- Illuminating the Impacts of Contextual Diversity on L2 Writing Proficiency: A Corpus-Based Analysis in the Measures of Linguistic Complexity
- Second Language Learners Listening to their Peers: Is There a Shared L1 Effect for L2 Comprehensibility and Accentedness?
- Some good news for the school: the levelling effect of the EFL class in FL vocabulary production and FL categorization of autochthonous learners and heritage speaker learners
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Frontmatter
- Co-constructing devices in narrative sequences of multilingual preschool children
- Exploring multilingual writers in secondary education: insights from a trilingual corpus
- Vocabulary Instruction in Textbooks of Italian as a Foreign Language: A Descriptive Analysis
- Passive Sentences and Abstract Agents in German School Books
- When correct spelling hardly matters: Teenagers’ production and perception of spelling error corrections in Dutch social media writing
- The teachers’ perspective on teaching languages to Polish seniors
- The use of the semi-lexical word ‘while’ by non-native (Polish) and native users of English based on corpora studies
- Illuminating the Impacts of Contextual Diversity on L2 Writing Proficiency: A Corpus-Based Analysis in the Measures of Linguistic Complexity
- Second Language Learners Listening to their Peers: Is There a Shared L1 Effect for L2 Comprehensibility and Accentedness?
- Some good news for the school: the levelling effect of the EFL class in FL vocabulary production and FL categorization of autochthonous learners and heritage speaker learners
