"The purist jungle"?
« previous post | next post »
Anne Abeillé's recently-published book "La Grammaire se Rebelle" describes linguistic prescriptivism as "la jungle puriste" / "the purist jungle".
But wait, don't prescriptivists want to turn the natural linguistic wilderness into a well-tended formal garden? Maybe, but in fact prescriptive rules are often incoherent as well as contrary to elite as well as informal usage, as we've often observed.
There's more to say about the many metaphors for linguistic prescriptivism — for example, the parallels with socio-political authority and rebellion — but for now, here's the avant-propos of Abeillé's book, followed by Google Translate's (very good) English version:
Qu’est-ce que la grammaire ? L’ensemble des règles qu’on emploie pour parler et pour écrire. Ces règles sont robustes et souvent séculaires, bien intériorisées par la plupart des francophones, même s’ils n’en sont pas toujours conscients. Mais elle est souvent réduite à une liste de pièges à éviter, de mots à proscrire (malgré que, se rappeler de, en vélo), sans justification rationnelle (« parce que c’est comme ça », « parce que c’est plus beau »). Pourtant, les usages vilipendés par les puristes actuels ont une logique et une histoire, ils sont bien présents dans la littérature qu’on nous cite souvent en exemple, et ils n’ont pas toujours été considérés comme des fautes. Et au lieu de parler de « fautes », il vaudrait mieux, le plus souvent, parler de variantes, et de prestige associé (ou non). Pour qu’il y ait faute, il faut qu’il y ait règle, et les « règles » des puristes sont souvent contradictoires, inapplicables, s’appuyant sur des usages obsolètes et largement fantasmés. Loin d’être de simples coquetteries un peu désuètes, elles nuisent en fait à la compréhension de la langue et à son enseignement.
Ce livre est un exercice de démocratisation grammaticale, pour survivre dans la jungle puriste, qu’on a beau désherber, et qui repousse toujours, avec des diktats d’un autre âge qui visent à réduire nos moyens d’expression. Pour utiliser à bon escient les formes dites « populaires » ou « familières », au lieu de les dévaloriser, puisqu’ailleurs, ces mots sont plutôt positifs (un acteur populaire, une mélodie familière, un parfum familier). Il s’agit de réhabiliter le français de tous les jours, notre langue commune, car pourquoi avoir honte de ce qui nous unit ? Pour retrouver le plaisir d’apprendre et d’enseigner la langue dans toute sa richesse, le plaisir de parler et d’écrire, avec des règles solides, fondées sur des régularités observables.
What is grammar? It is the set of rules we employ to speak and write. These rules are robust—often centuries old—and deeply internalized by most French speakers, even if they are not always consciously aware of them. Yet, grammar is often reduced to a mere list of pitfalls to avoid and words to proscribe (such as *malgré que*, *se rappeler de*, or *en vélo*), without any rational justification—merely "because that’s how it is" or "because it sounds better." However, the usages vilified by today’s purists possess their own logic and history; they are amply present in the very literature often cited to us as a model, and they have not always been regarded as errors. Indeed, rather than speaking of "errors," it would usually be more appropriate to speak of variants—and of the prestige (or lack thereof) associated with them. For an error to exist, there must be a rule; yet the "rules" espoused by purists are often contradictory and inapplicable, relying on usages that are obsolete and largely fanciful. Far from being mere, slightly quaint stylistic affectations, these notions actually hinder our understanding of the language and the way it is taught.
This book is an exercise in grammatical democratization—a means of survival within the purist jungle, which, no matter how often we attempt to weed it out, always grows back, bringing with it archaic dictates aimed at curtailing our means of expression. Its purpose is to make judicious use of forms labeled "popular" or "familiar"—rather than devaluing them—given that, in other contexts, these very terms carry positive connotations (a *popular* actor, a *familiar* melody, a *familiar* scent). It seeks to rehabilitate everyday French—our shared language—for why should we feel ashamed of that which unites us? It aims to restore the joy of learning and teaching the language in all its richness—the sheer pleasure of speaking and writing—guided by solid rules grounded in observable regularities.
I have the impression that linguistic prescriptivism has always been stronger in France than in the Anglophone world, at least since the post-revolutionary effort to establish a standard national language (and its broader European context).
As a result, Abeillé's book is maybe more striking for French readers than its equivalent would be in the English-speaking world, where (for example) the anti-prescriptivist Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage was first published in 1989, and Webster's Third New International Dictionary sparked controversy immediately after its publication in 1960.
I wonder, is there a Francophone parallel to the on-going decline of English-language prescriptivist books, mass-media columns, and the like?
Olaf Zimmermann said,
March 27, 2026 @ 7:19 am
Quoth myl: "I have the impression that linguistic prescriptivism has always been stronger in France than in the Anglophone world," – yet mostly honoured in the breach ;-)
cf. Larousse vs Robert, Grévisse vs Darbelnet, &c. (see also 'De la langue allemande [1780] and its aftermath).
One of the major problems on the Continent is that their judicial jargon owes much to a Code Civil imposed by some Corsican. The Anglos were spared this fate, for better or for worse (but take a look above the 49th parallel)
J.W. Brewer said,
March 27, 2026 @ 9:04 am
@Olaf Zimmermann, within the U.S. there's a "Code Civil" equivalent governing most of the legal system in Louisiana – different from any of the 49 other states in that regard, as a continuing consequence of its distinctive non-Anglo early history. But there doesn't seem to be any spillover effect in heightened linguistic prescriptivism.
Laura Morland said,
March 27, 2026 @ 6:17 pm
Having lived in France for a quarter of a century, I would agree with you that "linguistic prescriptivism has always been stronger in France than in the Anglophone world."
It's fascinating is that the difference in register, principally vocabulary, between written and everyday spoken French is much greater than exists in English. A couple of examples:
A young woman, was making friends in Paris after extensive studies in French back in the U.S. In the course of her speech, she said, "Néanmoins." Her friend interrupted her, declaring "You can't say that."
"What do you mean?" she replied. "I know that néanmoins means nevertheless."
"It does, but we don't use words like that when we talk."
A young man named Chase who grew up in Paris with an English father and American mother is making a big hit on YouTube these days by teaching SPOKEN French to his viewers.
I selected these four slightly at random; they're all under a minute long, and quite entertaining!
https://youtube.com/shorts/ktgHP2YwELk?si=ivtBVJuwsxlHUQz7
https://youtube.com/shorts/5iXgGmMAppk?si=V0PK5ZZqGIU7fNGV
https://youtube.com/shorts/g5jD1IxQ20g?si=btWyJLcITJeCRXLZ
https://youtube.com/shorts/351Xx7pUuP0?si=lDrLL2z4YocQnEtT
Olaf Zimmermann said,
March 27, 2026 @ 6:25 pm
@ JWB: From my pedestrian perspective, there is, obviously, a huge difference between written and spoken language. But I was specifically referring to law-speak, where "grammar, grammar, grammar – think of the tiny tots"* comes into play. Which occasionally invades our pedestrian lives.
Be that as it may, tomorrow I'm going to my bookshop, in the hope that they may have Abeillé's book on their shelf. D'ailleurs, 'chuis un vieux oulipotard ;-)
* courtesy of Stan Freberg
Olaf Zimmermann said,
March 27, 2026 @ 7:10 pm
@Laura Morland: néanmoins vs nonobstant vs ceci dit &c
this is all very nice, but the main issue here is la grammaire, grand-mère, et comment jouer avec, bon-ben (impardonnable in written French, BTW)
Doctor Science said,
March 27, 2026 @ 9:28 pm
@Laura Morland:
And the contractions between classroom & spoken French are on top of the ones between orthography & pronunciation. One of my children learned French (among other languages), the other started with German because it drove her *nuts* how many silent letters French has, she wanted her second language to be WYSIWYG, English is bad enough.
Laura Morland said,
March 28, 2026 @ 8:21 am
@Olaf Z –
Oui, bien sûr, the main issue here is la grammaire. Nevertheless (néanmoins ;-) as I stated above, to me it's fascinating that a language that is more prescriptivist than English has such completely different registers between its written and spoken forms; much more than does everyday English, as spoken in the U.S.. (Ignoring, of course "Black English" and other such forms of discourse.)
In terms of etiquette, I would point out that it's not unusual for a post by Liberman o4 Mair to not only permit, but sometimes inspire, long discussions on a "sidebar issue" to the main topic of the post.
Mark Liberman said,
March 28, 2026 @ 10:05 am
@Laura Morland: "it's fascinating that a language that is more prescriptivist than English has such completely different registers between its written and spoken forms"
I have the impression that this is a general phenomenon. The stronger the prescriptive pressure in maintaining the standard language, the greater the diglossic gap between the standard language and everyday usage, whether morphosyntactic, lexical, or phonetic.