Still on the Quest

Posted by Mark Liberman

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=73142&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-purist-jungle

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=73142

Anne Abeillé's recently-published book "La Grammaire se Rebelle" describes linguistic prescriptivism as "la jungle puriste" / "the purist jungle".

But wait, don't prescriptivists want to turn the natural linguistic wilderness into a well-tended formal garden? Maybe, but in fact prescriptive rules are often incoherent as well as contrary to elite as well as informal usage, as we've often observed.

There's more to say about the many metaphors for linguistic prescriptivism — for example, the parallels with socio-political authority and rebellion —  but for now, here's the avant-propos of Abeillé's book, followed by Google Translate's (very good) English version:

Qu’est-ce que la grammaire ? L’ensemble des règles qu’on emploie pour parler et pour écrire. Ces règles sont robustes et souvent séculaires, bien intériorisées par la plupart des francophones, même s’ils n’en sont pas toujours conscients. Mais elle est souvent réduite à une liste de pièges à éviter, de mots à proscrire (malgré que, se rappeler de, en vélo), sans justification rationnelle (« parce que c’est comme ça », « parce que c’est plus beau »). Pourtant, les usages vilipendés par les puristes actuels ont une logique et une histoire, ils sont bien présents dans la littérature qu’on nous cite souvent en exemple, et ils n’ont pas toujours été considérés comme des fautes. Et au lieu de parler de « fautes », il vaudrait mieux, le plus souvent, parler de variantes, et de prestige associé (ou non). Pour qu’il y ait faute, il faut qu’il y ait règle, et les « règles » des puristes sont souvent contradictoires, inapplicables, s’appuyant sur des usages obsolètes et largement fantasmés. Loin d’être de simples coquetteries un peu désuètes, elles nuisent en fait à la compréhension de la langue et à son enseignement.

Ce livre est un exercice de démocratisation grammaticale, pour survivre dans la jungle puriste, qu’on a beau désherber, et qui repousse toujours, avec des diktats d’un autre âge qui visent à réduire nos moyens d’expression. Pour utiliser à bon escient les formes dites « populaires » ou « familières », au lieu de les dévaloriser, puisqu’ailleurs, ces mots sont plutôt positifs (un acteur populaire, une mélodie familière, un parfum familier). Il s’agit de réhabiliter le français de tous les jours, notre langue commune, car pourquoi avoir honte de ce qui nous unit ? Pour retrouver le plaisir d’apprendre et d’enseigner la langue dans toute sa richesse, le plaisir de parler et d’écrire, avec des règles solides, fondées sur des régularités observables.

What is grammar? It is the set of rules we employ to speak and write. These rules are robust—often centuries old—and deeply internalized by most French speakers, even if they are not always consciously aware of them. Yet, grammar is often reduced to a mere list of pitfalls to avoid and words to proscribe (such as *malgré que*, *se rappeler de*, or *en vélo*), without any rational justification—merely "because that’s how it is" or "because it sounds better." However, the usages vilified by today’s purists possess their own logic and history; they are amply present in the very literature often cited to us as a model, and they have not always been regarded as errors. Indeed, rather than speaking of "errors," it would usually be more appropriate to speak of variants—and of the prestige (or lack thereof) associated with them. For an error to exist, there must be a rule; yet the "rules" espoused by purists are often contradictory and inapplicable, relying on usages that are obsolete and largely fanciful. Far from being mere, slightly quaint stylistic affectations, these notions actually hinder our understanding of the language and the way it is taught.

This book is an exercise in grammatical democratization—a means of survival within the purist jungle, which, no matter how often we attempt to weed it out, always grows back, bringing with it archaic dictates aimed at curtailing our means of expression. Its purpose is to make judicious use of forms labeled "popular" or "familiar"—rather than devaluing them—given that, in other contexts, these very terms carry positive connotations (a *popular* actor, a *familiar* melody, a *familiar* scent). It seeks to rehabilitate everyday French—our shared language—for why should we feel ashamed of that which unites us? It aims to restore the joy of learning and teaching the language in all its richness—the sheer pleasure of speaking and writing—guided by solid rules grounded in observable regularities.

I have the impression that linguistic prescriptivism has always been stronger in France than in the Anglophone world, at least since the post-revolutionary effort to establish a standard national language (and its broader European context).

As a result, Abeillé's book is maybe more striking for French readers than its equivalent would be in the English-speaking world, where (for example) the anti-prescriptivist Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage was first published in 1989, and Webster's Third New International Dictionary sparked controversy immediately after its publication in 1960.

I wonder, is there a Francophone parallel to the on-going decline of English-language prescriptivist books, mass-media columns, and the like?

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=73142&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-purist-jungle

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=73142