Language Policy

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 295–313 | Cite as

Je suis circonflexe”: grassroots prescriptivism and orthographic reform

  • Patrick DrackleyEmail author
Original Paper


This paper addresses the role of bottom-up prescriptive pressures in language policy debates and their interplay with institution-driven, top-down influences. I approach this issue through an analysis of social media data concerning debates surrounding recent orthographic reform in France. Building on Heyd’s (Lang Soc 43: 489–514, 2014) discussion of grassroots prescriptivism, I illustrate how French speakers on Twitter oppose the suggested changes through a set of common strategies. I argue that these strategies largely hinge upon the mobilization of particular discourses, especially that of the ideal French speaker. This ideal French speaker is presented as a figure with which speakers in opposition to the reforms may align themselves, thus casting those in favour of the reform as “bad” French speakers. The dynamic in these social media discourses shifts the traditional balance of prescriptivist power away from the institutional level and toward the public. I conclude by arguing that prescriptivist ideologies need to be understood in terms of the interaction of top-down and bottom-up pressures, and in this context the role of policymakers in language planning projects becomes more challenging.


Language policy Language planning French/France Orthographic reform Grassroots prescriptivism Social media 



The author would like to thank Rakesh Bhatt, Doug Kibbee, and the Language in Society Discussion Group (UIUC) for their helpful feedback on early drafts of this paper, as well as the three anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and insights. Any remaining errors are my own.


  1. Académie française. (2016). L’histoire. Site officiel de l’académie Française. Retrieved from Accessed 30 June 2017.
  2. Adamson, R. (2007). The defence of French: A language in Crisis?. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, R. (1999). Spelling reform in France and Germany: Attitudes and reactions. Current Issues in Language and Society, 6(3–4), 276–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beal, J. (2008). Three hundred years of prescriptivism (and counting). In: Tieken-Boon van Ostade, T., and W. van der Wurff (Eds.) Current issues in late modern English. Bern: Peter Lang. (pp. 35–56).Google Scholar
  6. Bhatt, R. M. (2002). Experts, dialects, and discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 74–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blommaert, J. (2009). A market of accents. Language Policy, 8, 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blommaert, J., Kelly-Holmes, H., Lane, P., Leppanen, S., Moriarty, M., Pietikainen, S., et al. (2009). Media, multilingualism and language policing: An introduction. Language Policy, 8(3), 203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1991 [1982]). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bracher, N. (2007). Remembering the French resistance. History and Memory, 19(1), 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Branstetter, J. (2011). The challenge of new media in French and American politics: Concepts, methods, and opportunities. French Politics, 9, 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Chansou, M. (2003). L ‘aménagement lexical en France pendant la période contemporaine (1950–1994). Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
  16. De Cock, B., & A. Pizarro Pedraza (2018). From expressing solidarity to mocking on Twitter: Pragmatic functions of hashtags starting with #jesuis across languages. Language in society, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  17. Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  18. eMarketer. (2013). Twitter is widely known in France but Garners few regular users. Retrieved from Accessed 7 Feb 2018.
  19. eMarketer. (2016). Social networking on the rise among France’s older web users. Retrieved from Accessed 5 Feb 2018.
  20. Gal, S. (2006). Contradictions of standard language in Europe: Implications for the study of practices and publics. Social Anthropology, 14(2), 163–181.Google Scholar
  21. Gal, S., & Irvine, J. T. (1995). The boundaries of language and disciplines: How ideologies construct difference. Social Research, 62(4), 967–1001.Google Scholar
  22. Grillo, R. (1989). Dominant languages: Language and hierarchy in britain and France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Heyd, T. (2014). Folk-linguistic landscapes: The visual semiotics of digital enregisterment. Language in Society, 43, 489–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Higonnet, P. (1980). The politics of linguistic terrorism and grammatical hegemony during the French Revolution. Social Theory, 5(1), 41–69.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, S. (2000). The cultural politics of the 1998 reform of German orthography. German Life and Letters, 53(1), 106–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, S. (2002). On the origin of linguistic norms: Orthography, ideology, and the first constitutional challenge to the 1996 reform of German. Language in Society, 31, 549–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, S. (2006). Orthographe, légitimation et construction des “publics”: Débats idéologiques et linguistiques autour de la récente réforme de l’orthographe allemande. Bulletin Suisse de la Linguistique Appliquée, 83(2), 33–52.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, S. (2012). Orthography, publics, and legitimation crisis: The 1996 reform of German. In A. Jaffe, J. Androutsopoulos, & M. Sebba (Eds.), Orthography as social action: Scripts, spelling, identity, and power (pp. 21–42). De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin and Boston.Google Scholar
  29. Le Henaff, L. (2016). Réforme de l’Orthographe: 10 mots qui vont changer à la rentrée. TF1. Retrieved from Accessed 1 May 2016.
  30. Le Page, R. B., & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Martin, E. (2006). Marketing identities through language: English and global imagery in French advertising. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Milroy, J. (2000). Historical description and the ideology of the standard language. In L. Wright (Ed.), The development of standard english, 1300–1800: Theories, descriptions, conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Moschonas, S., & Spitzmüller, J. (2010). Prescriptivism in and about the media: A comparative analysis of corrective practices in Greece and Germany. In S. Johnson & T. Milani (Eds.), Language ideologies and media discourse: Texts, practices, politics (pp. 17–40). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  35. Rebourcet, S. (2008). Le français standard et la norme : l’histoire d’une « nationalisme linguistique et littéraire » à la française. Communication, lettres et sciences du langage, 2(1), 107–118.Google Scholar
  36. Rectifications de l’Orthographe. (1990). Rapport du Conseil Supérieur de la Langue Française. Retrieved from Accessed 1 May 2016.
  37. Sebba, M. (2012). Orthography as social action: Scripts, spelling, identity, and power. In A. Jaffe, J. Androutsopoulos, & M. Sebba (Eds.), Orthography as social action: Scripts, spelling, identity, and power (pp. 1–19). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  38. Shelly, S. L. (1999). Une certaine idée du français: The dilemma for French language policy in the 21st Century. Language and Communication, 19, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Silverstein, M. (1979). Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology. In P. R. Clyne, W. F. Hanks, & C. L. Hofbauer (Eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels (pp. 193–247). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Silverstein, M. (1998). The uses and utility of ideology: A commentary. In B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard, & P. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 123–145). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Squires, L. (2010). Enregistering internet language. Language in Society, 39(4), 457–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Statista. (2018). Share of social network subscribers among internet users in France in 2013, by gender. Retrieved from Accessed 4 Feb 2018.
  43. Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  44. van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Watts, R. J. (2000). Mythical strands in the ideology of prescriptivism. In L. Wright (Ed.), The development of standard english, 1300–1800: Theories, descriptions, conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wiley, T. (1996). Language planning and policy. In S. McKay & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 103–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wiley, T. (2000). Continuity and change in the function of language ideologies in the United States. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology, politics, and language policies: Focus on english (pp. 67–85). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wortham, S., & Reyes, A. (2015). Discourse analysis beyond the speech event. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wright, S. (2004). Language policy and language planning: From nationalism to globalisation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zappavigna, M. (2012). Discourse of twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  51. Zappavigna, M. (2014). Enacting identity in microblogging through ambient affiliation. Discourse and Communication, 8(2), 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations