English and “Correct” Words in French

L’Académie française has once again called for more “defense” of the French language against incorrect use of the language, especially with regards to Anglicisms. I do not agree with l’Académie’s prescriptivist ideas on vocabulary use and trying to force the formal (often written) language onto the spoken form. It is one thing to determine if a sentence is grammatically correct concerning function words, verb conjugations, word order, etc. but it is completely different to proclaim that certain content words are incorrect since vocabulary choice is highly dependent on the topic, context, medium (speech/writing) and audience. As long as the meaning of the words are similar (such as formal vs. informal variants), there is no correct or incorrect use of a word over another. It is merely what is appropriate or not to that particular situation. Saying “Hey, what’s up?” to the president is not incorrect – because that would imply that it would never be used at all by native speakers, when in fact it is used quite often – but it is inappropriate to use an informal variant in a formal situation.

Telegraph has a recent article on L’Académie’s fight against English words in French. Their website includes a new page called “Dire, Ne pas dire” which includes les fautes, les tics de langage et les ridicules qui s’observent le plus fréquemment dans le français contemporain. Jean-Matthieu Pasqualini of the Académie said “We want to restore courage to all those in France and outside France who endeavour to defend and enrich the language. Let French remain a great language of communication and culture.” But what does he mean by enrich? Claiming that some words in contemporary French (that aren’t even Anglicisms) are absurd or wrong doesn’t exactly seem like a good start.

France’s culture ministry also has a new website for people to propose French words in place of the borrowed English words at wikilf.culture.fr which states “il ne s’agit nullement de déclarer la guerre aux mots étrangers, anglais en particulier, qui sont passés dans la langue courante – pas question de toucher au week-end et au sandwich – mais d’anticiper l’utilité d’un terme étranger qui pourrait s’installer en français.” (Telegraph’s translation: “This is in no way about declaring war on foreign terms, English in particular, that have entered into common usage like sandwich or weekend. It is about anticipating the usefulness of a foreign term that could be settling into the French language.”) While I’m happy to see that they acknowledge the natural state of constant evolution and change that occurs in all human languages, the fact that they are trying to propose French translations for Anglicisms that have yet to become so entrenched in the language seems a bit suspect. There is nothing wrong with wanting to use the French translations, of course, but why is it considered ok to use sandwich and week-end but not casting or email? Just because sandwich and week-end have been used in French for longer, that somehow makes them more acceptable?

I know I have expressed my annoyance at the use of English words in French in the past, but I am not frustrated because of the existence of the borrowings, which are natural and normal in any language. I am frustrated that language learning materials do not include the borrowings or other aspects of contemporary French vocabulary. They only tend to include the standardized form of the language, or what people should say (dictated by l’Académie) instead of what people actually say, which is not useful for students who need to comprehend the various dialects and styles and which leaves them with an inaccurate and stereotypical portrayal of the French language.

Another reason that resistance to borrowings is a bit unreasonable is that certain words in English are actually borrowings from old French, which then have later been re-borrowed back into French in the newer Anglicized form. Toast in English comes from old French toster, whereas modern French stopped using toster in favor of pain grillé, but has also borrowed toast from modern English. So is le toast really an Anglicism if it was originally French?

Are you French or English, Mr. Toast?

When it comes to Anglicisms, many people like to point out that Quebecois French has more English borrowings than French in France (which isn’t true) to justify their prejudiced view that Quebecois French isn’t “real” French. That’s just as ridiculous as saying American English isn’t real English or Mexican Spanish isn’t real Spanish simply because it is not spoken in the “mother country” where the language originated. I do not understand the colonialistic attitudes about language use, just as I do not understand why some people make a connection between the older form of a language and a supposed superiority of the variety that is closest to the old form. A dialect that is more conservative with change is somehow more desirable than the others, yet many people believe that the mother country dialect is also the most conservative which is not true. Quebecois French contains many aspects of Old French that speakers in France no longer use, which some wrongly assume are Anglicisms when in fact they are Old French.

In Quebecois, Belgian and Swiss French the three meals of the day are le déjeuner, le dîner, and le souper whereas most areas of France nowadays use le petit déjeuner, le déjeuner and le dîner.* Quebec French did not borrow le souper from English supper; English borrowed it from Old French soper which turned into souper in modern French. In France, le souper is another meal even later than dinner and is usually associated with rural areas or an older generation. The words dinner and supper in English have also changed meaning somewhat over time. In my dialect of English, dinner and supper are synonyms for the evening meal, but in other forms of English, dinner is the midday meal (instead of lunch) and supper is the evening meal (instead of dinner) so the older French, current Quebec and English meals were parallels at one time: déjeuner = breakfast (dé + jeûne: undo or break fast), dîner = dinner and souper = supper.

Wordreference.com has a thread on the names of the meals where native speakers contribute what they say in their region. Looking at posts #2 and #6, you can see how far the idea of bon usage and correct French (i.e. what l’Académie says is correct) has spread. I quote from the forum:

De manière correcte et quelles que soient les régions de France :
on déjeune à midi
on dîne ou on soupe le soir (plus utilisé en milieu rural)

and the post that made me nearly cry, which refers to the above post:

Tout-à-fait d’accord. Mais chez nous (sud-est), on continue à parler de “dîner” à midi. Chez moi, quand j’étais petite, on se simplifiait encore plus la vie : dîner, midi et soir . Le “déjeuner” c’était le petit déj’. Quand je suis sortie dans le monde, j’ai été très étonnée qu’on l’appelle “petit” !

Maintenant, grâce aux médias, la langue s’uniformise et on respecte de plus en plus le bon usage français.

I wonder if the millions of people in France who don’t use déjeuner and dîner in the same manner as the first poster know that they do not speak “correct” French. As for the second poster, I feel sorry that she thinks that her native dialect is not correct while at the same time praising the effects of standardization, which lead to her dialect being considered incorrect in the first place.

These are issues of geographic variation, but using one word instead of the other is not incorrect. Compare the use of pop vs. soda vs. coke in the US. I’m from Michigan so I say pop, but I don’t consider the use of soda or coke to be wrong or incorrect. They are simply different ways of saying the same thing depending on where you are from or where you are currently located. All dialects of a language should be seen as equals but the standardized form used in most writing, and which is generally based on the upper classes, is often considered the only correct variety. There is a place for the standardized form, especially for communication purposes and even teaching students how to produce language, but the other varieties are also just as valid as human languages and should not be reduced to incorrect deviations of the prestige form.

* Even more confusing is the spoken/informal use of déjeuner to mean “to eat breakfast” even in areas where the three meals are le petit déjeuner, le déjeuner and le dîner!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed.
  • Frogophile

    It’s just as well that the poms are more linguistically tolerant – imagine if we chucked out all the French words!

  • http://davidinfrance.com David

    I’m so embarrassed when my compatriots want to “defend the French language” while they know nothing about how languages work (and usually, the more clueless, the more vocal on the topic) and if they had their way totally, they would hurt the language more than anything else. What they want to do is the perfect recipe to have a dead language, actually written French is almost a “zombie language” (dead but still walking) because of the French Academy which has become irrelevant decades ago (if it ever was relevant, this is up to debate, as even if their first task: compiling a dictionary, they got beat by several people).

  • http://www.gwannelsandiego.blogspot.com Gwan

    Very interesting comments on the French language, but what also struck me was your use of “Telegraph” without the definite article – it looks very strange to me. Is this general American usage, your general usage, or would you usually say “The (Newspaper Name)” but didn’t in this case for whatever reason? (I’m not trying to nitpick by the way, just thought you might be interested in this small point of usage as well.)

    It also makes me very when I see local New Zealand usages increasingly giving way to American usages. This isn’t about anti-Americanism or thinking that our way of talking is inherently better, but from the same sort of sentiment that you have expressed vis-à-vis the loss of linguistic diversity in French. It feels a bit like a tiny loss of identity every time I hear people saying “zee” instead of “zed” etc. etc.

  • http://www.boeingbleudemer.com Cynthia

    Parisian French is the only French, or at the very least the only kind that still counts, I guess that’s why people aren’t so keen on learning or keep speaking it.  

    In France, people feel almost obligated to tell me that I speak good French for a foreigner … event though it’s my native language! But they say it because I speak in a standardised way and not the very typical Quebec kind of French.

    But I must say that the French drive me completely crazy when they use English words when it already exists in our language. Cheesecake and cranberry bother me the most I think !

  • http://www.correresmidestino.com Zhu

    I hate to start a flame war but after living in Canada for 7 years, I still think Québécois use more English expressions and “calques” than French.

    Québécois vocabulary doesn’t borrow English words directly like French do (and they also have a proper English accent when saying them out loud, unlike French). But Québécois do use English structures a lot such as “prendre une marche”.

  • Sallymari

    I echo what Gwan says!  For me too as a speaker of British English it sounds very strange to say “Telegraph” rather than “The Telegraph” when referring to this (British) newspaper. 

  • http://www.ielanguages.com Jennie Wagner

    I honestly have no idea why I didn’t include the article with Telegraph. I don’t know if it’s an American thing or just my way of writing newspaper names. I would always use the article if it comes after a preposition (an article in The Telegraph, in The New York Times, etc.) but at the beginning of a sentence, dropping the article doesn’t sound ungrammatical to me. I suppose it’s because I feel like the article isn’t absolutely necessary in that case. It would be the same thing with televisions shows, for example: I watched Big Bang Theory last night is no different to me than saying I watched The Big Bang Theory last night.

  • Pingback: "Correct" language | Learning to be Free()

  • Pingback: Déménager – Learning (to be) French « « Ah, Bon? Ah, Bon?()

  • Sean Hale

    No. One must always include the article. I know in French it is often excluded, but in English it sounds and is wrong. On the up-side, people will definitely know what you mean, but it’s still grammatically incorrect. 

  • Sean Hale

    I agree completely with you, Gwan. I can just about tolerate any Americanism in the English language, but saying ‘zee’ instead of ‘zed’ makes my blood boil! (And my bloody nieces say ‘zee’!) Arrgghhhhhh!

  • http://www.lefrancophoney.com/ Wendy Hollands

    Totally agree with you on this. My French is still terrible, and I sometimes sub in an English word with a French accent. Apart from ‘tonsillitis’ which definitely doesn’t work, it does tend to get my sentences understood. I tend to think of it as an enrichment of a language, although I’m sure the academy thinks it’s a dilution. Either way, French isn’t dead!

Why is Jennie no longer in France?

I created this blog in September 2006 when I moved to France from Michigan to teach English. Many of the earlier posts are about my personal life in France, dealing with culture shock, traveling in Europe and becoming fluent in French. In July 2011, I relocated to Australia to start my PhD in Applied Linguistics. Although I am no longer living in France, my research is on foreign language pedagogy and I teach French at a university so these themes appear most often on the blog. I also continue to post about traveling and being an American abroad.

Support ielanguages.com

The 2nd edition of French Language Tutorial is available as a PDF book. It has been updated with much more vocabulary, sample sentences, and cultural information, plus extended vocabulary lists, cross-referenced topics, and an alphabetical index.

Visit the Store to buy the PDF e-book for $14.95 or paperback book for $29.95.