Opinions about French in Quebec and its future are almost always steeped in deep confusion. When we are concerned, for example, about the decline in the place of French in Quebec and we propose, to counter it, a strengthening of Bill 101, in particular its extension to the college level and to all workplaces, we always finds commentators to come and tell us that the problem is not there. What threatens French, they say, is the fact that Quebecers speak and write it badly. Let’s force ourselves,
they add, and French, having become attractive, will live on forever.
So let’s repeat once again, here, to relaunch the debate on a better basis, the stupidity of this reply. Languages, in fact, do not disappear because their speakers speak or write them badly. To my knowledge, there is, in the history of humanity, no example of this type.
Languages disappear when they become folklorized and become useless. A language is in danger when its speakers, to work, to create, to succeed and to live, need another language. To survive in a community, a language must be necessary — we absolutely need it — and sufficient — we don’t need to speak another language.
Consequently, what threatens French in Quebec is not its poor mastery by Quebec speakers; it is the need that is increasingly imposed on them to speak English in order to succeed in their lives.
That admitted, we can also, even if it is another debate, look into the mastery of French by Quebecers. When we learn, for example, that, according to the OECD, 46.4% of Quebecers are functionally illiterate — they do not reach the 3e literacy level out of 5 — we can only say that there is cause for concern.
In 2017, however, in News, the economist Pierre Fortin relativized this sad news by qualifying it as abusive and reductive. First, he explains, the OECD does not use the concept of functional illiteracy and specifies that people who rank in 2e level can be perfectly “functional”.
Moreover, if we take age into account, we see that the 25-44 age group performs better than the youngest, who are still learning, and the oldest, whose skills are declining. It is surprising, however, that, according to the figures for 2022, 26.7% of university graduates do not exceed level 2.
The surprise is great when compared to other countries. While Japan, Finland and the Netherlands have stood out for years for their literacy skills — in the first country, 28% of adults do not reach level 3 and, in the other two, 39% —, Quebec, where 46.4% of people do not exceed level 2, does better than the average for OECD countries.
According to the 2012 and 2015 data for the 25-44 age category cited by Fortin, Quebec, in this regard, would even do better than countries such as Germany, France, the United States, Spain and Italy. No, we are not the dunces of the whole world.
Literacy, which measures the functional use of language, does not tell the whole story, however. Critics of the quality of the language in Quebec often deplore the abuse of Anglicisms and the lack of mastery of spelling.
In Untie the tongue (Alias, 2022, 162 pages), an essay that pleads “for a new discourse on French in Quebec”, linguist Mireille Elchacar challenges these derogatory judgments. “Quebecers,” she writes, “still speak French, have adapted their language to their time and their continent, a condition without which it would have disappeared in favor of English. Shouldn’t we rather celebrate them? ” Well said.
Elchacar first shows that Anglicisms, in Quebec French, “are less numerous than one might think”: less than 1%, according to a 2017 study. She then examines the question of spelling by putting forward a controversial thesis. According to her, spelling is unnecessarily complicated and often illogical, which explains why many French speakers, at all times, have not been able to master it.
For this reason, the time has come to carry out a major reform of French spelling aimed at eliminating its “oddities”, according to the term of the great linguist Albert Dauzat. Elchacar therefore supports the rectifications proposed in 1990 and the idea of simplifying the agreement of the past participle by summing it up to three rules: with have, it always remains invariable; with be, it agrees with the subject; used alone, it agrees with the name.
That’s not what will ensure the future of French in Quebec, but it’s exciting nonetheless. Should we go ahead? I hesitate. I like the language as it is.