It is a truism to say that language constitutes a minefield in Quebec. Not only is it politically, demographically and culturally, but also linguistically. For a long time, it was fashionable to promote the greatest mastery of it while deploring the poor state of written French in Quebec, particularly among students. However, little by little, a current of thought has developed and legitimized, in competition with this discourse considered to be outdated, which turns every reason for grievances like a glove: if written French is so deplorable, it is largely because it is too complicated and, moreover, it is complicated for nothing. Failing to master certain rules, considered obsolete and even harmful, it would be a question of reforming French. That is to say, to simplify it.
We also regularly see all kinds of pleas in favor of this solution which seems more and more self-evident.
Thus, on the first page of Duty on May 18 and 19, Caroline Montpetit informed us that a research group, EROFA (Studies for the rationalization of French spelling today), recently proposed to Acfas a series of measures to simplify French written with a view to making it more accessible. However, the arguments used are often shaky, containing imprecisions, tendentious half-truths and specious reasoning.
Counter-arguments
One of the arguments used consists of comparing French to other languages to show its Byzantine and “elitist” character. However, this received idea deserves some counter-arguments. I will just list five here.
A first measure would consist of eliminating any redoubling of consonants. However, it is present in many languages, whether in English (wedding), in Spanish (action) or in German (mutter). Repetition is therefore in no way a particularity of French and does not make it more difficult to master than any other language derived from Latin or Germanic.
A second proposal is to remove certain letters, such as h and y. So, rather than “man”, we should write om, reducing spelling to a simple phonetic transcription. However, the letter h exists in the main languages of European origin and, what is more, is not more pronounced in Spanish (man) than in French. According to the same logic, we should ban the series of letters “water” and simply replace it with an o.
It is true that the Spanish equivalent (analysis) and Italian (analisi) of the French term “analysis” does not take a y, but you should know that Italian does not include this letter (except in cases where it integrates foreign words as they are), and that Spanish includes several common words with this letter (ayer, hoy, etc.). Finally, note that English (analysis) and German (analysis) use the y like French. Should the English and German spelling also be corrected?
A third simplification of French would consist of eliminating the x to mark the plural of certain nouns and adjectives in favor of the s which has become the single rule. However, here again, it must be said that French is not the only language to have several rules for marking the plural. In Italian, where the s is not used, words ending in o generally substitute this letter with i (baby becomes toddler), those ending in a substitute the e (baby becomes toddler), and there are several particular rules constituting numerous cases of exceptions, without forgetting the invariable nature of certain words. In German, the plural is marked, depending on the ending of the words, by the letters e, er, and, en, n, s, without forgetting the simple diaeresis on a vowel (mutter becomes thus mütter) and invariable words.
Fourth, a “rationalization” of written French which does not attack the past participle agreed with the verb “avoir” would obviously lose all credibility. Its agreement with the direct complement placed before the verb has its share of detractors, including the Quebec Association of French Teachers since 2021. Unsurprisingly, we propose “to remove all agreements with the verb avoir”. This would free up no less than “80 hours spent in school teaching the complex rules of the past participle”. Do we realize that 80 hours are equivalent to two weeks of full-time study, at 40 hours each, to learn some rather basic grammar rules?
If we devote so much time to the past participle, with the mixed results that we know, one wonders if we are really dealing with a simply grammatical problem. Unless, of course, the figure of 80 hours is somewhat overestimated…
Do we know, moreover, that the same past participle with avoir must also agree in certain cases in Italian? And that, as in French, the agreement is made only if the direct complement is placed in front of the verb and, unlike French, only if this complement is a so-called atonal third person personal pronoun (lo, there, li Or THE) or the partitive pronoun born (equivalent to the French “en”)?
Finally, it is affirmed that the difficulties of French would lead to “enormous underestimated social costs” and would even cause “many social problems”, notably “discouragement, linguistic insecurity, even school dropouts”. Do we really believe that students drop out because of the particularities of written French in terms of spelling and grammar? And that English, because of its intrinsic ease, would prevent dropping out of school? In the same spirit, should algebra, essential in mathematics, chemistry and physics, be simplified to make these disciplines less anxiety-provoking and socially harmful?
This little overview of comparative linguistics is by no means exhaustive — far from it. At least it has the merit of pointing out that all languages have their difficulties, which can both differ from one another and be similar. We subscribe to a simply tendentious point of view when we emphasize difficulties specific to one language while ignoring or ignoring those which exist in other languages.
The greatest caution is required when getting involved in reforming French. Rather than oversimplifying it, at the risk of transforming it into an orthographic and grammatical tower of Babel within the French-speaking world, there would be reason to question the merits of both French learning programs in the curriculum. Quebec schools as well as written and oral language teaching courses provided in the faculties of education.