02 November 2017

Language And How To Lose It

Evolution not devolution.

By Lynda Goetz

Last week language featured in two articles in the Shaw Sheet. Its importance to human cultures, ventures and civilisations cannot be over-estimated. Some scientists have argued that language, as opposed simply to communication, is one of the features which distinguishes humans from other species. Without wishing to go into this complex area in any detail, it is obvious to any thinking person that language matters. Recent research has finally come down in support of the benefits of bilingualism rather than considering it to be a danger to childhood development. Not only does language matter, it is crucial to human endeavour.

Emmanuel Macron however considers that he can single-handedly change the French language to suit modern efforts to allow the idea of gender to become irrelevant. I would argue that language cannot be changed in this way. Language evolves continually. Governments cannot legislate to devolve the responsibility for language to a bureaucratic system that attempts to determine how language changes (although of course this is exactly what was done four centuries ago with the creation of the Académie Française). M. Macron’s attempt to ensure that a politically-correct gender-neutral version of the French language be adopted by the government, the civil service and academics, has been condemned by the Académie, itself frequently accused of imposing unpopular rules on the French language, but defended by feminists. Who is correct?

French, like many other languages, has masculine and feminine forms. The old rules dictate that where men and women are included the masculine form be used, as for example in the word ‘amis’. If only women are represented, then the feminine form ‘amies’ would be used when writing the word (although the pronunciation is in fact no different). The French government has decided that this is a form of ‘sexual tyranny’ and that the written language should be changed accordingly. Thus, in future, under the écriture inclusive a mid-punctuation point is inserted; so ‘amis’ becomes ‘amiˑeˑs’ in an attempt to avoid offending or excluding women and transgender people. In an era when many cannot even be bothered to spell full words, is this really going to work?

‘R U OK 2 meet @ 7? I might be l8’ is an example of a text I have received from a friend in the last few months. This was not from a teenager, but a woman in her fifties. If people want to reduce language to this sort of level, how bothered will they be to insert additional punctuation to comply with some government edict? The Académie, an elitist organisation comprised, it has to be said, of mainly male academics, writers, philosophers and scientists, has frequently been accused of being out of touch with ordinary people. This is almost certainly true. Its attempts to prevent the inclusion of Anglicisms in French have rarely been successful. Common examples would be the use in common parlance of words such as ‘le marketing’, ‘le jogging’, ‘le weekend’ or ‘un email’. Many of these words deal with modern (Americanised) lifestyles and no amount of ranting by the Académie has prevented their adoption. So what makes M. Macron think his attempts to dictate how language evolves will be any different? This is a bid, not by the Académie, but by the government, to impose on people the way their language is written. Unless it is universally welcomed, it is unlikely to be adopted anywhere other than in those institutions on whom it has been foisted.

The Académie Française was created in 1635 by Cardinal Richelieu. “La principale fonction de l’Académie sera de travailler avec tout le soin et toute la diligence possibles à donner des règles certaines à notre langue et à la rendre pure, éloquente et capable de traiter les arts et les sciences, which roughly translated means that the main purpose of this august body was to be responsible for keeping the French language pure. To this end they produce not only a dictionary, but are also responsible for grammar and orthography, in other words, the way words are written. It is, of course, an essentially conservative body. There are a mere 40 ‘immortels’ (or under the new system ‘immortelˑleˑs’) or members, who have stated in a unanimous declaration that Macron’s new rules ‘put the French language in mortal danger’. They argue, not without reason, that the new forms are clumsy to read and write, even though they are not intended to alter spoken pronunciation.

Caroline de Haas, a feminist activist has apparently countered with the following statement, “The Académie Française is supposed to reflect the evolution of language and new developments as its role is to codify them. This time, it is trying to go against progress and it is insulting to women.” Perhaps Mme de Haas has not noticed how largely unsuccessful the Académie has been in its attempts to ‘go against progress’. Sir Michael Edwards, a poet and professor from London and the only English member of the Académie, has condemned gender-inclusive spellings (‘on purely linguistic grounds’, of course, in case he upsets or offends anyone) as ‘gibberish’. The legislation and academic arguments will probably hold little sway. What will matter is how the general populace react.

Computer manufacturers, in the meantime, are reportedly already making plans to overcome the practical obstacles by selling keyboards with a new key to type the mid-point from next year. What about mobile phone manufacturers, I wonder?