I warn you, the subject of this column is worn out like an old record. I come to talk to you about the quality of the French language, the one we hear in the media.
It seems that over time, my tolerance for language errors, anglicisms and imprecise vocabulary is diminishing. And then, just like you, I have my obsessions. When I hear them, I break out in my skin.
I can no longer stand hearing “all” in all sauces, as in “all the trout fillets”, which a chef threw out the other day on a cooking show.
Speaking of feminine and masculine, God some people have trouble with that. How can we explain that people with diplomas come on TV or on the radio to talk about “a pillow”, “a staircase” or “a helicopter”?
By the way, can we fix one thing? “Money” is masculine. We don’t make “good money”.
The project to simplify the agreement of the past participle divides. But it seems that this reform is already being applied by many people, like this columnist I heard the other day on the radio: “The beets I took. »
We must salute the linguistic capsules of ICI Première and Télé-Québec, but we should tackle simpler things and tackle the bad wrinkles that we can no longer get rid of. “We miss him,” a famous singer said the other day about a missing politician. As for the classics “that has it” and “the world are”, my ears hurt!
The reports and interviews presented live allow us to see how many people in Quebec have difficulty writing well-structured sentences. For us, a sentence is often an amalgamation of several fragments of words which form an incoherent whole.
The best way to find out is to do an interview transcription exercise (something journalists who work for a newspaper often do). How many times do we have to restructure the elements to get a decent sentence? How many times have I said to myself while listening to certain people interviewed: what exactly does she mean?
I tried to find studies or reports that deal with the quality of French in the media. This field of interest is thin. The last time the Office de la langue française (OLF) took a serious interest in the subject dates back to 2003. This document was prepared following the Larose report which made the recommendation.
The conclusion highlighted an “improvement” or “some improvement” in the quality of written language, but more harshly criticized the quality of spoken language on radio and television.
In 1998, an OLF survey said that about half of Quebecers found that the language was deteriorating on television and radio, but 80% said that the situation had remained the same or had improved in newspapers. .
I still spoke with Davy Bigot, sociolinguistics specialist and professor in the French studies department at Concordia University. In 2008, he published a study based on around a hundred interviews seen and heard on the defunct show Point of Radio-Canada, between 2003 and 2005.
The researcher established a list of 17 linguistic variants in the spoken Quebec language. For example, the periphrastic future (which combines several terms) in positive sentences: “I’m going to walk” instead of “I’ll walk”, the generalization of the presentative “it’s”: “it’s beautiful cars” instead of of “these are beautiful cars”, the addition of “you” in interrogative clauses: “do you want to come back?” », the neutralization of “done” into “done”, without regard to gender: “he was hurt”, etc.
Davy Bigot hastened to calm my concerns by defending the particularities of the French language depending on the country.
From the point of view of oral grammar, Quebec French does not differ from French that could be called international. There is no clear definition of this international French, it is a myth. There are different varieties of French which have linguistic features that may be unique to them.
Davy Bigot, professor in the French studies department at Concordia University
These words, coming from a professor of French origin who has lived in Quebec for a long time, are surprising. But they also aim to put things into perspective. “You have to be careful, because for me, these are not grammatical errors. These are familiar forms that can be used in a formal communication situation. Saying “all my friends” is not a grammatical error, it is a stylistic error. »
This researcher is right to bring these nuances, but the fact remains that these “errors of style” become heavy in the end and are stains on this language that we say we love.
During our conversation, Davy Bigot said something very interesting about the normative pressure which is less important in Quebec than in France. “Someone who says “if I would have” in France will be clearly stigmatized. Here, it will be less serious. »
Deep down, that’s what saddens me the most. We try to protect our language with laws and technical means, but we forget to polish it and enrich it collectively. The French language is demanding, it is up to us to raise our level of demands with regard to it.
Otherwise, what’s the point of fighting to save her?