Adults’ spelling and understanding of possession and plurality: an intervention study

Hokanson, Lesli; Kemp, Nenagh

doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9366-7

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The remaining textisms seen in the other students’ exams are summarised in Table 1. Various other types of textism types that have been observed in previous research on actual text-messages (e.g, Grace et al, 2012; Hokanson and Kemp, 2013) were not seen in the exam papers viewed in this study. The textism types not seen in these exam papers included g -clippings (e.g., doin for doing ), combined homophones (e.g., 2nite for tonight ), initialisms (e.g., atm for at the moment ), accent stylisation (e.g., gonna for going to ), and extra capitals (e.g., TOGETHER for together ).…”

Section: Studycontrasting

confidence: 51%

“…Second, we did not count misspellings in exams as textisms (e.g., seperate for separate ), although some text-messaging studies have included a category of misspellings (e.g., Drouin and Driver, 2012; Thurlow and Brown, 2003). Third, we did not count the widespread errors with possessive apostrophes (e.g., the researchers theory for the researcher’s theory ) as textisms because these apostrophes are so commonly omitted in standard writing by undergraduates (Hokanson and Kemp, 2013). However, we did follow previous research on the use of textisms (e.g., Grace et al, 2012; Plester and Wood, 2009) in counting the much rarer omitted contractive apostrophes (e.g., dont for don’t ), but we acknowledge that these do not necessarily represent the intrusion of textisms into formal writing.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Undergraduates’ attitudes to text messaging language use and intrusions of textisms into formal writing

Grace

Kemp

Martin

et al. 2013

New Media & Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students’ increasing use of text messaging language has prompted concern that textisms (e.g., 2 for to, dont for don’t, ☺) will intrude into their formal written work. Eighty-six Australian and 150 Canadian undergraduates were asked to rate the appropriateness of textism use in various situations. Students distinguished between the appropriateness of using textisms in different writing modalities and to different recipients, rating textism use as inappropriate in formal exams and assignments, but appropriate in text messages, online chat and emails with friends and siblings. In a second study, we checked the examination papers of a separate sample of 153 Australian undergraduates for the presence of textisms. Only a negligible number were found. We conclude that, overall, university students recognise the different requirements of different recipients and modalities when considering textism use and that students are able to avoid textism use in exams despite media reports to the contrary.

show abstract

Section: Studycontrasting

confidence: 51%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Undergraduates’ attitudes to text messaging language use and intrusions of textisms into formal writing

Grace

Kemp

Martin

et al. 2013

New Media & Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nor should we expect standardized possessive apostrophe use to be good now - even among those with strong formal educational backgrounds. Hokanson and Kemp (2012) studied how well 53 first-year Psychology undergraduate students in Australia used apostrophes for possession. Their study required students to complete three tasks: a recognition task in which the students were asked to circle errors embedded in sentences; a writing production task in which students were required to fill in the blanks in sentences with target words that were dictated to them; and an oddity task in which students heard groups of three sentences, two of which contained words of the same morphological status (e.g.…”

Section: A-level Education and The Possessive Apostrophementioning

confidence: 99%

An athletes [sic] performance: Can a possessive apostrophe predict success?

Cop¹,

Hatfield²

2017

English Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If we believe social media, newspapers, and even some of our best friends and colleagues, the war over standard usage is on. As with many wars, the opposing sides seem to be entrenched in differing ideological positions and many of the battles seem to take place over the most unstable, smallest bits of territory - such as the Oxford comma, singular they, or split infinitives. In this ongoing war, possessive apostrophes have attracted particularly aggressive forays. For example, when some English cities proposed removing apostrophes from street signs, various news outlets published headlines such as, ‘It's a catastrophe for the apostrophe in Britain’ (NBC, 31 January, 2009), ‘Dropped apostrophes spark grammar war in Britain’ (New York Times, 16 March, 2013), and ‘“It's pandering to the lowest common denominator”: Anger as Cambridge bans apostrophe from street names’ (Daily Mail, 18 January, 2014). Explaining Birmingham's ban, one city councillor was not that much less sensational, stating that apostrophes ‘denote possessions that are no longer accurate, and are not needed’ and that ‘they confuse people. If I want to go to a restaurant, I don't want to have an A-level (high school diploma) in English to find it’ (NBC).

show abstract

An Examination of the Writing Strategies Used by Deaf and Hearing Adults: Similarities and Differences in Cognitive, Linguistic and Conventional Components

Nicolarakis¹

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adults’ spelling and understanding of possession and plurality: an intervention study

Cited by 3 publications

References 24 publications

Undergraduates’ attitudes to text messaging language use and intrusions of textisms into formal writing

Undergraduates’ attitudes to text messaging language use and intrusions of textisms into formal writing

An athletes [sic] performance: Can a possessive apostrophe predict success?

An Examination of the Writing Strategies Used by Deaf and Hearing Adults: Similarities and Differences in Cognitive, Linguistic and Conventional Components

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About