In recent weeks, the question of the reform of past participles has caused much ink to flow. Several people spoke out in the public space, often to denounce this company. What we can learn from this media whirlwind is that the majority of the arguments against such reforms testify either to a misunderstanding of the real mechanisms of the language, or to a certain “purism” which advocates the maintenance of a French that no longer reflects the use of the locutorate. […]
Whether we like it or not, the language evolves, and some of the elements that constitute it age and end up, with time and usage, falling into disuse. We see it on the lexical level, with words like varlope, a term that has become very rare in use (words do not age at the same rate everywhere, diachylon is old in France, but still used in Quebec). This same phenomenon applies to grammatical spelling, where rules like those of the past participle have already gone through many changes in history to arrive at the current rules. Molière, for example, whose name is associated with the French language, did not agree his past participles according to today’s rules.
Thus, it is not new to want to adapt spelling to the natural evolution of the language. These changes, contrary to popular thought, do not constitute attacks on the language itself, nor on its historical heritage, nor on its identity value. People are attached to the spelling of French because they see it as a symbol. But no one questions the importance of language. A spelling reform is to the language what a change of window is to a house: a simple maintenance, even an update. However, in this kind of debate where emotion takes over, we seem to lose all critical reflection.
Leveling down
The star argument of the race to the bottom is purely rhetorical. All reforms aim to improve the system to which they apply. We would never reform something to make it more complex or inefficient. We cry genius when we find more adequate and modern ways to manage our electrical network, but when it comes to education, this argument leads to an impasse. Impossible to improve anything without being accused of cowardice or incompetence. Any track of improvement is systematically received, wrongly, as a lowering.
However, in the matter of past participles, it is important to reiterate a key point: we do not believe that our students are incapable of learning the rules. We believe that our students deserve that every second spent in class is better spent. Spending an insane amount of time teaching these rules, as artificial as they are outdated, does them a disservice. Thus, there is no question of lowering the requirement thresholds, on the contrary. It was never about lowering the level, but about upgrading.
We realize that, ultimately, the substance of the debate is purely ideological and based on the perception of language and its functions. As ideologies are rooted in a system of values and beliefs, it is difficult to negotiate them in a debate. This is what we have seen with this reform.
Like any belief system, no one can take away anyone’s right to think that a language is more beautiful because it is complex, fixed, stable and pure.
However, linguists agree that this is not how languages really work: they evolve, they diverge, they borrow and, more importantly, they live, thanks to the people who speak them. As specialists and professionals, we have a responsibility towards our students to use scientific research and facts to adopt the best possible teaching practices, not beliefs.
The real threat to the French language is not a simple spelling reform, it is the discourse that circulates according to which a person must suffer in order, perhaps, to be able to live up to his own language.
A language might be the most picturesque, the most complex, the noblest, but if it is to be confined to the history books, that is not the language we need.