Lingua Franca

Interesting discussion in the comments of a post by Abiola on Romance languages:

Ogunsiron: I actually don't like the fact that in french, the negation has, over the centuries, gone from the use of "ne" by itself, to "ne pas" and is moving towards "pas" . For some reason i don't like the fact that french will have this weird word "pas" that's completely different from all the other indo-european negation markers. I also don't like the fact that "Y'a personne" means "there is no one" when it should logically mean "there is someone" .

I noticed something of the unwieldy nature of French a few weeks ago reading (of all things!) the side of a packet of my wife's Interfloss. The bilingual logo read "Makes Flossing as easy as brushing your teeth" and (something like) "Rend faire la soie dentaire aussi facile que se brossant les dents". It shouldn't come as a surprise that French dreams of a largely francophone globe have come to nought. It may be the case that French suffers because it is still a dirigiste language, maintained (mostly) according to the dictates of Académie française rather than adapting market-style according to the needs of users.

Comments

[Peter Nolan]

Yeah, I always thought that if current trends and policies continue, French will become like Irish, a minority language, even in France.

[eoin]

Is Irish really a minority language even in France? I suppose it is.

There is no hope of French people abandoning their beautiful language, thank God, no matter how "dirigiste" the Academie Francais is. And being dirigiste is not the reason for the collapse of Irish in Ireland ( nor France, seemingly) either - nor is French "mostly" maintained by the dictates of the Academie Francais - it is alive and spoken - you will find - all over France. Seriously, they don't actually switch to English when we are not listening - I have even eavesdropped on occasion. Technical language never translates, except awkwardly, with the exception of German - where technical language somes into it's own.

[Frank McGahon]

Well, for starters, French's clunkiness means it hasn't acquired the global reach of English and Spanish. I would expect to see a decline in learning French as a second language: Spanish or English are more useful. So, the proposition is mainly to do with how the language spreads outside France. As for within France, I don't agree with Peter's notion that it will become a minority language, at least in an analogous position to Irish but I don't think it's too fanciful to imagine that "correct" French, given the popularity of anglophone music and films, might lose out to a more globalised "Franglais": with increasing use of the anglicised phrases and words that the Academie loathes like "le weekend", "le sandwich" etc.

[Peter Nolan]

"I don't agree with Peter's notion that it will become a minority language..."

Even I wouldn't, as I'm being more than a little ironic, but French is likely to change, not just with borrowings from English, but probably also with a big injection of Mahgrebian Arabic terms.

The AF does embody two futile ideas, namely that language is static and that isolating a culture from foreign pollution keeps it healthy and vibrant.

In spite of spending a long time learning the language, there's probably no point at all in my having done so, as anything I need for work or study is written originally in English anyway.

[eoin]

First Point: I am not here to defend the Academie. They are stupid. The language is not under threat by English terms, no more than English is under threat by French terms. Of which it has a lot.

Second Point: The term lingua franca comes from Latin and means French Language - it also means the language of diplomacy - a place held by French right until the beginning of the last century: even during the height of the British Empire. In short, no-one had trouble with it then as a mediator between all European nations, which included Britain even at the height of it's Empire. All English diplomats spoke French, the French diplomats may not have spoken English, and would not be expected to in European meetings between the Powers.

English has become the Lingua Franca because of the historical accident of the US being an English speaking country. Is all. All other assumptions, assuming as they do your bias against "dirigiste" , or clumsy, languages are just wrong. English is a very hard diplomatic language, in fact, because it has too many words with too many meanings.

It should be obvious, too , that if the US was a French speaking nation the Academie would not exist, as the French would not fear their universal language being under threat from the language of the small islands off Europe.

[Dermot McGahon]

"Il n'y a personne" is probably more correct than "Y'a personne", but argot expands on a daily basis.

Along those lines, we also have (and have always had): "tu me manques", for, "I miss you!".

[Frank McGahon]

Second Point: The term lingua franca comes from Latin and means French Language...

Er, that was the reason behind the title...

English has become the Lingua Franca because of the historical accident of the US being an English speaking country. Is all. All other assumptions, assuming as they do your bias against "dirigiste" , or clumsy, languages are just wrong. English is a very hard diplomatic language, in fact, because it has too many words with too many meanings

This is your assertion but there is no real proof of this. In any case, what I seek to demonstrate is not why the current Lingua Franca is English so much as the absurd fantasy of France that it might regain its previous eminence. This issue is a lot more complex than you make out. France has a network of "Alliance Francaises" throughout the world promoting French culture and language and the uptake has been abysmal, particularly in Eastern Europe. You can't simply blame this on English, it is not the only competing second language.

Dermot: I think that "y'a personne" is just an abbreviation but what is absurd about the word "personne" is that logically it should mean "person(s)" when it actually means "lack of person(s)"

[J.Cassian]

It should be obvious, too , that if the US was a French speaking nation the Academie would not exist, as the French would not fear their universal language being under threat from the language of the small islands off Europe.

The Académie Francaise was founded in 1635 by Cardinal Richelieu. According to its own site La mission qui lui fut assignée dès l’origine était de fixer la langue française, de lui donner des règles, de la rendre pure et compréhensible par tous. The reasons for this are likely to be a concern with classicism (having a literary language which would survive the centuries, fixing canons of taste and linguistic correctness etc.) and consequent national prestige. I don't think the French were too bothered about creeping English influence in the seventeenth century (when the international language of diplomacy was Latin). I wouldn't downplay the role of the British Empire in the rise of global English either.

[eoin]

"I wouldn't downplay the role of the British Empire in the rise of global English either."

I would - except for the US being an ex-British colony, of course. Were the US the power it is now, and were it French speaking, Eastern Europeans would be learning French.

Your original point, Frank, is that French is too complex, or awkward a language to be a success ( you said it "suffers"). The fact that it was the Lingua Franca, at the height of the British Empire too, proves you wrong; and you are skirting around the issue by not dealing with it

For instance:
" In any case, what I seek to demonstrate is not why the current Lingua Franca is English so much as the absurd fantasy of France that it might regain its previous eminence. This issue is a lot more complex than you make out. France has a network of "Alliance Francaises" throughout the world promoting French culture and language and the uptake has been abysmal, particularly in Eastern Europe. You can't simply blame this on English, it is not the only competing second language."

You never made the point that France was trying to retain it's previous global eminence ( an eminence you didn't mention) in the original article; and the second part of that sentence is not a refutation of my point about America but a detour around it; you refuse to engage my point. These ex-French colonies are powerless, and do not dominate World popular culture. Your original point is that French is too complex to spread. That is not the reason. The reason that languages become powerful if the culture behind them is powerful. A culture's strength is generally related to economic performance, but not always. France was a centre of fashion long after it was eclipsed by Germany in economic performance - there can be a lag before the Lingua Franca changes.

Nevertheless I would put my money on Chinese being the language of diplomacy, and the second language of many countries, in the late 22nd century, and it is very complex.

[J.Cassian]

I would - except for the US being an ex-British colony, of course

That's a big "except"! I wouldn't describe the Seven Years War as an "historical accident". The rest of the GB empire covered a not insignificant portion of the globe too. IIRC it was at the Congress of Berlin in 1878 (towards the height of the empire) that the British insisted on English being used alongside French.

Actually, I tend to agree with Eoin: I don't think it's the inherent qualities of a language that determine whether it's used for diplomacy or not (English spelling anyone?), I think it's the weight its speakers have (or used to have) on the international scene. Except I think maybe he slightly downplays the role of political clout as well as cultural influence. A language with purely cultural prestige tends to stay confined to cultural matters (e.g. Italian in musical terminology). The rise of French in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth century had as much to do with Louis XIV and his successors having a big army as the prestige of Racine's tragedies or the fashion for perukes.

Since I've got the time today, I've just been browsing through the Enlightenment thinker Rivarol's Discours sur l'universalité de la langue française (1784) which discusses similar ideas to this thread from a French perspective. He already identifies English as his language's main potential rival in the near future. I like the reference to Shakespeare as "l' idole de sa nation et le scandale de notre littérature".

As for Chinese being the international language of the future, well, 15 years ago it was supposed to be Japanese, so I won't speculate there…

[Frank McGahon]

Eoin, I'm grateful for your paraphrasing my view: you clearly know my own mind better than I do!

In any case, the original point was to do with the clunkiness of French, which is exacerbated by the presence of an official arbiter of correctness. I'm sure that if there was a British Academy or a Spanish Academia, you would see a similar retention of archaisms and uncomfortable constructions in those languages. French is also notable for the ridiculous fantasy of possible global eminence which drives French foreign policy. Even in such countries similarly prone to excessive attachment to symbolism (e.g. Spain) there is not the same delusion.

[Colin Campbell]

Today (Sun 24/10/2004) the Sunday Telegraph reported that some French politicians object to English being made a compulsory language in schools. They are seriously mistaken to take that view. They will push France further down the scale of world powers. Let English and French both bask in the sun. French is the language of culture and cuisine, English is the language of business and engineering. All four of these attributes make man seperate from the rest of the animal kingdom.

I believe that these short-sighted individuals are sore at the fact that an ex-colony of England is able to make the biggest bang on the planet.

Let the entente continue. I like froggy food

Au revoir

Colin D Campbell