There is pressure on the Quebec Ministry of Education so that the past participle used with the auxiliary have can always remain unchanged. The Quebec Association of French Teachers asked the state to recognize invariability. In this respect, it follows other interventions in the matter, including that of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation.
As a teacher, I personally say that such a transformation would be daunting. There are some to claim that the current standard should be “deconstructed” because of its complexity. Of course, language evolves, but it should not be shaped by drawing inspiration from the incomprehension it arouses in some people.
The agreement of the past participle used with the auxiliary have is not without meaning. The link between the participle and the direct complement is logical. If, in a sentence, the complement precedes the verb, then it is because it is already known to the author when he writes the participle. This is why the participle is marked by the gender and the number of the complement to which it is semantically associated.
Reading a text where the chords are made by following a variable logic is like listening to a musician play out of tune. The comprehension problems associated with the linguistic standard are not due to the standard, but to the teaching that is sometimes given to it. It is better to find effective ways of explaining the logic of the standard to students than to hurry away from it. Otherwise, other “innovations” are likely to occur. Variable gender agreement for names beginning with the letter a: a beautiful plane! Acceptance of anglicisms: why flush them out if they are so much a part of usage? According to some experts, to deplore this kind of deconstruction would be to wage a rearguard struggle. However, my presumption is that the majority of speakers would wish to preserve the linguistic norm of the past participle chord if it were explained with the expected clarity and relevance.
Watch video