French did not have until now a grammar of the contemporary written and spoken language, attached to dissect all its potentialities. It is this gap that comes to fill The Great French Grammar (GGF), co-authored by professor of linguistics at the University of Paris Anne Abeillé. Passing through Montreal, she explains to the To have to the genesis of this flagship project.
Why did you choose to write a descriptive and non-prescriptive grammar?
We are linguists, so we have a somewhat scientific and more objective approach to language. We observe the uses: what is frequent, recent or specialized in a region? We don’t ignore the norm. We mention it because it is part of the language, but there is no hierarchy. As Montaigne said, “every use has its raison d’être”. We then try to explain how the system of the language is robust enough to allow several variants, but also why certain variants prevail.
The great grammar of French draws up an inventory of “ordinary” French from the 1950s until today, write to you. What do you mean by “ordinary” French?
Standard French is that which conforms to the norm. However, if we limited ourselves to standard, literary French, we would miss a lot of things, in particular oral French and all this French on the Internet of which we now have written traces. Before, the oral was volatile, we could neglect it. Now, we see all these writings that are less standardized, and we take them into account. “Ordinary French”, which is an expression of the sociolinguist Françoise Gadet, describes everyday French. We speak for example of the fact of using “on” instead of “nous”, but also of the omission of “ne” in a negative sentence.
Languages change over time, they are fragmented in space and have distinct uses according to age and social groups, you write. What to answer to those who are of the opinion that these variations are detrimental to the quality and durability of French?
The durability of French is ensured by the number of speakers who use it. The more people use the language, the livelier it is. Quality is very subjective. Often, new forms are disturbing because we are not used to them. This discourse on the decline of French, which would like a pure language, is old and dangerous for the vitality of the language. It is normal for several uses to coexist: a language that is doing well is a language that allows variation. We need to play with multiple registers and identities. We have never written and read so much in French.
You explain that the French-speaking linguistic space has noticeably different ways of expressing oneself in French. Can we then say that there is not one, but many French people?
We started out a bit without a priori, since we wanted to document the different regional varieties of French and we wondered if, ultimately, we would have a single grammar. The conclusion we have drawn is that there are a lot more commonalities than differences. If we do not take only literary French as a reference, we see that spontaneous oral uses are similar on both sides of the Atlantic. Colleagues who have identified thousands of fixed verbal expressions in France, Quebec, Switzerland or Belgium have discovered 80% commonality, even for colorful expressions such as “to cost the eyes of the head” or “to put the cart before cows “.
Would you say that the book contributes to restoring the image of grammar?
Yes ! Often the word “grammar” scares people. They think it’s a normative, punitive discourse, but for us linguists, grammar is the internal system of the language. With The GGF, we bring a lot of tools (tables, files, a glossary) in order to uninhibit people a little and to ensure that they are a little less intimidated. We would like our book to be used for teaching French in a very practical way.