« Step-siblings, not kin |
Main
| About Nuclear Weapons »
July 14, 2005
The Language of a Counter Power
It would be easy enough to criticize the French language on its malphony -- it is, I've been told, a tongue easier to pronounce if one has a nasal infection. What's more, it is also a wasteful language: words contain at least 50% superfluous letters. But above these trifling objections, one will find that the French language is symbolic of French chauvinism, a part of their culture that Frenchmen go to great lengths to protect and glorify.
Young English speakers just beginning study of foreign tongues are often amazed to learn of the Academie francaise, the official body responsible for the usage, vocabulary, and grammar of French. Such an institution strikes a student as entirely sensible, yet an English counterpart is incomprehensible. That some high bureaucrat would tell us what words we could say would seem absurd, impossible, and intolerably arrogant. An English "Immortal" would soon find high irony in that title.
Yet despite having a very special body designated to fawn over their language, the French are losing out. In a global marketplace of ideas, what could be more distressing than to see one's currency, language, being devalued? The obvious solution is to throw up trade barriers.
The most striking result of French insecurity is the Toubon Law of 1994, that banned, under penalty of fines or prison, foreign words in business documents, advertising, government publications, and broadcasting -- if suitably equivalent French words existed. Ah those ingenious French, don't you know they established a commission to create those French equivalents, churning out 3,500 Gallic neologisms? So walkman, software, and e-mail became baladeur, logiciel, and courielle. So much better, non?
Songs are harder to translate, leading to the "Pelchat" Amendment, which required radio stations to play at least 40% French-language songs during prime radio hours (6:30am to 10:30pm); similar rules exist for television. In effect, legislators have created greater flexibility with this rule, and I've been told some radio stationed took to playing extremely short French "songs" in order to meet quota. Still, the obsessiveness of the French State is ridiculous, both in terms of intrusiveness and protectionism.
How very delicate this French language must be! It's not as if it weren't spoken by 128 million people worldwide. But, as in all international affairs, France must be at the forefront; hence, the creation of le Francophonie, the Gallic equivalent of the Anglosphere. Yet the former is quite unlike the latter, which is organic, informal and more cultural than linguistic. Then if France contrived the Francophony, one must wonder what is its raison d'etre? As with most international organizations, it seems to exist for the purpose of holding summits. How nice of France to throw worldwide parties where their impoverished former colonies can come celebrate one of the few artifacts of French imperialism that has some utility: a common tongue!
Yes, French is a useful language; approximately 40% of the English lexicon is of French origin, but that should emphasize that our language is polyglot and thereby grants considerable flexibility in connotation and style. Yet France continues to treat it (and other languages) as an infection. Very well, we should let them continue to be at once both insecure and arrogant, to insulate their language and culture, and we shall see who prevails: peoples who adapt to the global exchange of information or a people who wall themselves in and look with fatuous amour propre upon their tiny domain.
Posted by Zach Wendling at July 14, 2005 12:09 AM
Actually, I think baladeur *is* nicer than "walkman," and I intend to begin using it forthwith.
Posted by: Paul at July 14, 2005 07:47 AM | permalink
You still use a walkman? I thought you had an "eee-Pod."
Posted by: Zach Wendling at July 14, 2005 09:35 AM | permalink
Baladeur sounds much better than iiii-Pod.
Posted by: Paul at July 14, 2005 09:36 AM | permalink
Apple would probably insist on "iBaladeur," though.
Posted by: Zach Wendling at July 14, 2005 09:43 AM | permalink
What does that little "i" stand for anyway?
Posted by: Jonathan Bunch at July 14, 2005 09:57 AM | permalink
I completely agree about the linguistic tyranny from which France now suffers. The silent letters, though, do serve a purpose; the vowels are pronounced in poetry and traditional vocal music, and even the silent consonants play a part in the rhyme scheme of proper French poetry. Details like these exist in any language and should not be lumped together with the neologisms that ordinary French people don't often use anyway. As it happens, "E-mail," or just "mail" sounds perfectly correct in spoken French, and this is what the vast majority of non-bureaucrats call it there.
Posted by: Jason Kuznicki at July 14, 2005 10:11 AM | permalink
hat does that little "i" stand for anyway?
The "i" stands (or stood) for "internet" in the original iMac.
Posted by: Foltz at July 14, 2005 10:26 AM | permalink
Of course, English is actually much more nasal than French-- since nasality isn't used to distinguish meaning in English words, we let our velums flap around all willy-nilly, resulting in plenty of unintentional low-level nasality that we simply aren't aware of.
I'm just sayin'.
Posted by: jlt at July 14, 2005 02:48 PM | permalink
English doesn't use nasality to distinguish meaning? Yeah, cause everytime I mean to say "mat" I end up saying "bat". They're the same thing right? How about "nat"? Ooh, and "cannon" and "canyon". Oh, by the way, your velum-bone doesn't have much to do with your nasal-cavity-bone, I assure you. Also, I don't know about your velum, but mine is quite well schooled and would never flap unintentionally. Anyway, if you insist on embarking on some defacement of English-speakers, you might be reminded that speakers of any language tend not to be aware of the underlying representations of the words they use. Unless those speakers are French, of course, because they are so obviously freakishly paranoid about their nasalizations.
Tootle pip!
Posted by: Sam at July 14, 2005 11:01 PM | permalink
Perhaps I should have been more specific: nasality is not phonemic in English _vowels_, as it is for French _vowels_. The pair 'bat' and 'mat' shows that it is phonemic for English consonants. 'Cannon' vs. 'canyon' is a place difference: the sound in 'canyon' is palatalized, whereas 'cannon' is alveolar; both are nasals and so do not illustrate anything one way or the other about the issue at hand. Place vs. manner, dear.
And I assure you, your velum has everything to do with the articulation of nasal sounds, be they consonants or vowels. When the velum, also known as the soft palate, is raised to close off the nasal cavity, all air is forced through the oral cavity, resulting in oral sounds. When it is lowered, it can form a closure with the oral cavity, forcing the airflow through the nasal passage. That is precisely the articulatory difference between sounds like d and n. Consult any basic introductory phonetics text like Peter Ladefoged's "A Course in Phonetics" to confirm this. Look for a saggital section diagram and brush up on your vocal tract anatomy.
Any phonetician will also confirm that English vowels are nasalized frequently when they occur near a nasal consonant-- it's a type of assimilation, a common process that happens all over the place, with all sorts of features.
What speakers actually do in the process of articulation need not have anything to do with what they believe themselves to be doing. I nasalize my vowels all over the place, and so do you if you're a native English speaker. Noting an empirically observable fact about articulation should never be construed as anything but that. I don't see how one could disparage English speakers somehow by simply noting a fact about English phonology. Nor do I see how one can accuse the French of being "freakishly paranoid" for observing a phonemic difference that other languages do not. That's just bizarre. I was just noting that phonetically, English has a _lot_ of nasality in it, but we aren't aware of it since nasality is not a feature of vowels that we need to pay attention to to make ourselves understood.
Sheesh.
Posted by: jlt at July 18, 2005 11:12 AM | permalink