Cover not available
Article published In:
Written Language & Literacy
Vol. 26:2 (2023) ► pp.266–291

The analysis of errors in written word and sentence production

The value of a classification for French

| Laboratoire de NeuroPsychoLinguistique – LNPL – E.A. 4156
| Basque Center on Cognition Brain and Language (BCBL)
| Laboratoire CeRCA, CNRS-UMR 7295
This paper proposes a linguistic theoretical review of French spelling surrounding regularity and consistency questions both in the description of forms and in the estimation of regularity. After having described the terminological ambiguity that prevails in these analyses and after having shown the impact of this ambiguity on the analysis of written errors, we propose a new classification of French written errors passing through theoretically-driven and concept-driven analyses. This classification, focuses on the production of lexical and grammatical spelling created for the DynaPen project and is available on OSF.
Keywords: cognitive science, errors classification, French language, orthography, theoretical review, writing.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Going back to the start: Theoretically-driven analyses of written French
  • 3.Evolution towards data-driven analyses of written French
  • 4.Current classification
  • 5.Proposal for a spelling error analysis grid for French
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Bibliography
Published online: 4 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00080.sou
References (58)
Bibliography
Beauvois, M.-F., & Dérouesné, J. (1981). Lexical or Orthographic Agraphia. Brain: a journal of neurology, 1041, 21–49.Google Scholar
Bonin, P. (2003). Production verbale de mots. Approche cognitive. De Boeck.Google Scholar
Bonin, P., Chalard, M., Méot, A., & Fayol, M. (2002). The determinants of spoken and written picture naming latencies. British Journal of Psychology, 93 (1), 89–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonin, P., Collay, S., & Fayol, M. (2008). La consistance orthographique en production verbale écrite : Une brève synthèse. L’Année Psychologique, 108 1, 517–546.Google Scholar
Bonin, P., Peereman, R., & Fayol, M. (2001). Do Phonological Codes Constrain the Selection of Orthographic Codes in Written Picture Naming? Journal of Memory and Language, 45 (4), 688–720. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouraoui, J.-L., Boissière, Ph., Vella, F., Lagarrigue, A., Mojahid, M., Laur, D., Vigouroux, N., & Nespoulous, J.-L. (2007). Prolégomène à l’étude des erreurs en production écrite. Proposition en vue de la mise au point d’une grille d’analyse (IRIT/PR-2007-7-FR; p. 26). IRIT.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., Miceli, G., Villa, G., & Romani, C. (1987). The role of the Graphemic Buffer in spelling : Evidence from a case of acquired dysgraphia. Cognition, 26 (1), 59–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Catach, N. (1980). L’othographe française. Traité théorique et pratique, avec des travaux d’application et leurs corrigés (Nathan).Google Scholar
Catach, N., Gruaz, C., & Duprez, D. (2016). L’orthographe française : Traité théorique et pratique avec des travaux d’application et leurs corrigés (Armand Colin).Google Scholar
Content, A., Mousty, P., & Radeau, M. (1990). BRULEX. Une base de données lexicales pour le français écrit et parlé. L’Année Psychologique, 90 1, 551–556.Google Scholar
Content, A., & Radeau, M. (1988). Données statistiques sur la structure orthographique du Français. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology (Special isue), 87 1.Google Scholar
Côté, M.-H. (2005). Le statut lexical des consonnes de liaison. Langages, 158 1, 66–78.Google Scholar
Daurat, A., Etchecopar, P., Bezy, C., & Soum-Favaro, C. (2008). Evaluation clinique de deux patients présentant un trouble acquis de la lecture. Rééducation orthophonique, 235 1, 77–94.Google Scholar
Delattre, M., Bonin, P., & Barry, C. (2006). Written spelling to dictation : Sound-to-spelling regularity affects both writing latencies and durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32 (6), 1330–1340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, A. W. (1979). Slips of the pen. Visible Language, 13 1, 265–282.Google Scholar
(1988). Normal writing processes and peripheral acquired dysgraphias. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3 (2), 99–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fayol, M. (1997). Des idées au texte. Psychologie cognitive de la production verbale, orale et écrite. Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
(2019). Research on Written Word Production and Writing Research. In Spelling and Writing Words. Theoretical and Methodological Advances (Brill, Vol. 391, p. 226).Google Scholar
Fayol, M., Hupet, M., & Largy, P. (1999). The acquisition of subject-verb agreement in written French : From novices to experts’ errors. Reading and Writing, 11 1, 153–174.Google Scholar
Fayol, M., Largy, P., & Lemaire, P. (1994). Cognitive Overload and Orthographic Errors : When Cognitive Overload Enhances Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. A Study in French Written Language. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 47 (2), 437–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gak, V. G. (1976). L’orthographe du français. Essai de description théorique et pratique (Selaf).Google Scholar
Gimenes, M., Perret, C., & New, B. (2020). Lexique-Infra : Grapheme-phoneme, phoneme-grapheme regularity, consistency, and other sublexical statistics for 137,717 polysyllabic French words. Behavior Research Methods, 52 (6), 2480–2488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gosse, C., & Van Reybroeck, M. (2020). Do children with dyslexia present a handwriting deficit? Impact of word orthographic and graphic complexity on handwriting and spelling performance. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 97 1, 103553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haton, J.-P., & Lamotte, M. (1971). Etude statistique des phonèmes et diphonèmes dans le français parlé. Revue d’acoustique, 16 1, 258–262.Google Scholar
Kandel, S., Lassus-Sangosse, D., Grosjacques, G., & Perret, C. (2017). The impact of developmental dyslexia and dysgraphia on movement production during word writing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 34 (3–4), 219–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreiner, D. S. (1996). Effects of Word Familiarity and Phoneme-Grapheme Polygraphy on Oral Spelling Time and Accuracy. The Psychological Record, 46 (1), 49–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lafon, J.-C. (1961). Message et phonétique. Introduction à l’étude acoustique et physiologique du phonème. (Presses Universitaires de France).Google Scholar
Lambert, E., Sausset, S., & Rigalleau, F. (2015). The ortho-syllable as a processing unit in handwriting : The mute e effect. Reading and Writing, 28 (5), 683–698. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, J. (2008). Langage écrit. In Traité de neuropsychologie clinique. Nerosciences cognitives et cliniques de l’adulte (De Boeck).Google Scholar
Lecours, A. R. (1996). Langage écrit : Histoire, théorie et maladie. L’Orthoédition.Google Scholar
Lecours, A. R., & Lhermite, F. (1969). Phonemic paraphasias : Linguistic structures and tentative hypotheses. Cortex, 5 1, 193–228.Google Scholar
Lecours, A. R., Tainturier, M.-J., Soum, C., & Lambert, V. (1996). Démarche clinique. In Langage écrit : Histoire, théorie et maladie (p. 91–148). L’orthoEdition.Google Scholar
Léon, P. R. (1966). Prononciation du français standard. Aide -mémoire d’orthoépie. (Didier).Google Scholar
Lété, B., Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Colé, P. (2004). Manulex : A grade-level lexical database from French elementary-school readers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36 1, 156–166.Google Scholar
Levenshtein, V.-I. (1966). Banary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Cyber. Contr. Theory, 10 (8), 707–710.Google Scholar
Lucci, V., & Millet, A. (1994). L’orthographe de tous les jours. Enquête sur les pratiques orthographiques des Français. Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Mesquida, C., Largy, P., Soum-Favaro, C., & Gunnarsson, C. (2010). Lorsque qu’une liaison prénominale gène puis facilite la production du pluriel des noms chez l’enfant. Synergies-Pays Scandinaves, 5 1, 113–121.Google Scholar
Nespoulous, J.-L. (1990). De la difficulté d’interprétation des mmanifestations de surface. In Linguistique et NEUROPSYCHOlinguistique : Tendances actuelles (p. 5–14). Société de Neuropsychologie de Langue Française.Google Scholar
New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2 : A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36 (3), 516–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
New, B., Pallier, C., Ferrand, L., & Matos, R. (2001). Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur Internet : LEXIQUE. L’Année Psychologique, 101 1, 447–462.Google Scholar
Pacton, S. (2019). Implicit Statistical Learning of Graphotactic Knowledge and Lexical Orthographic Acquisition. In Spelling and Writing Words. Theoretical ans Methodological Advances (Brill, p. 41–66).Google Scholar
Pallaud, B. (2006). Une base de données sur les troncations involontaires de mots en français parlé. Travaux Interdisciplianirtes du Laboratoire Parole et Langage d’Aix-en-Provence, 25 1, 173–184.Google Scholar
Peereman, R., & Content, A. (1999). LEXOP: A lexical database providing orthography–phonology statistics for French monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31 (2), 376–379.Google Scholar
Perry, C., & Ziegler, J. C. (2004). Beyond the Two-Strategy Model of Skilled Spelling : Effects of Consistency, Grain Size, and Orthographic Redundancy. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57 (2), 325–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Planton, S. (2014). Processus centraux et périphériques en production écrite de mots : Études comportementales, en neuroimagerie fonctionnelle et par stimulation magnétique transcrânienne. [Thèse de Doctorat]. Université de Toulouse 3 Paul Sabatier.Google Scholar
Planton, S., Jucla, M., Démonet, J.-F., & Soum-Favaro, C. (2019). Effects of orthographic consistency and word length on the dynamics of written production in adults : Psycholinguistic and rTMS experiments. Reading and Writing, 32 (1), 115–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pothier, B., & Pothier, P. (2004). EOLE Echelle d’Acquisition en Orthographe Lexicale. Du CP au CM2 (Retz).Google Scholar
Rossi, M., & Peter-Defare, E. (1995). Lapis Linguae : Word errors or phonological errors? International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 11 (1), 5–38.Google Scholar
(1998). Les lapsus ou comment notre fourche a langué. Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Sausset, S., Lambert, É., & Olive, T. (2016). La syllabe dans la production écrite de mots. L’Année Psychologique, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simoës-Perlant, A., Loury, F., Largy, P., Gunnarsson, C., & Soum-Favaro, C. (2013). L’effet de la liaison chez l’enfant dyslexique et normo-scripteur. A.N.A.E., 124 1.Google Scholar
Soum, C., & Nespoulous, J.-L. (1997). Contraintes phonologiques et erreurs orthographiques. Modèles linguistiques, XVIII (2), 139–164.Google Scholar
Soum-Favaro, C., Gunnarsson, C., Simoës-Perlant, A., & Largy, P. (2014). La liaison à l’interface entre l’oral et l’écrit. In La liaison : Approches contemporaines (p. 380). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Soum-Favaro, C., Solier, C., Perret, C., Chesnet, D., Ros, C., & Barry, I. (2019). Etude des processus d’écriture dans la dysorthographie [Communication orale Toulouse Mind & Brain Institute].Google Scholar
Sprenger-Charolles, L., Colé, P., Béchennec, D., & Kipffer-Piquard, A. (2005). French normative data on reading and related skills from EVALEC, a new computerized battery of tests (end Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3, and Grade 4). European Review of Applied Psychology, 55 (3), 157–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprenger-Charolles, L., Colé, P., Piquard-Kipffer, A., & Leloup, G. (2010). Evalec Enfant- Batterie informatisée d’évaluation diagnostique des troubles spécifiques d’apprentissage de la lecture. Ortho-Edition.Google Scholar
Vallée, N., & Rousset, I. (2004). Indices en typologie des structures lexicales et syllabiques pour la discrimination et l’identification des langues [MIDL].Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., Jacobs, A. M., & Stone, G. O. (1996). Statistical analysis of the bidirectional inconsistency of spelling and sound in French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 28 (4), 504–515. DOI logoGoogle Scholar