The Universality of the French Language
This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2011) |
The Universality of the French Language (French: Discours sur l'universalité de la langue française) is a 1784 essay by Antoine de Rivarol. He began his discourse by tracing a brief history of the origins of French language, claiming that the Roman conquest and the invasion of the Franks in Gaul contributed to the emergence of a linguistic hierarchy, at the top of which stood Latin. However, the contact between Latin and the idioms spoken by the “barbarian” population generated the vulgarisation of classical Latin, namely a multitude of patois dialects.[1] The writer also highlighted the two major languages which divided French territories: the Picard language, spoken in the north, and Provençal, the language of the south. Although pre-eminence was given to the northern language, Rivarol regarded the northern pronunciation as “a little bit thud” and regretted the eclipse of the southern language, which he qualified as full of sounds “that would have conferred to French more splendor”.[2] Afterwards, Rivarol examined the causes of the universality of the French language.
The
On June 3, 1784, Rivarol was awarded the Berlin Academy Prize for the essay.
German
Rivarol began his critique with the language of
Spanish
The second language to be criticized by Rivarol was the
Italian
When it came to his ancestral country, Antoine de Rivarol's discourse veered to a more solemn tone. In fact, he did not hesitate to dedicate five or six pages of eulogy on the “centre of the world for so many centuries”.
English
The last language to come under fire was
French
The last and the most important part of Rivarol’s essay was devoted to the French language. Indeed, he would not cease to praise it until the end of his discourse. In this passage, Rivarol launched himself into a demonstration full of nationalist passion for the progress of the French language. He put a particular emphasis on the intrinsic values of France. He began his defence by an exaltation of the reign of Louis XIV, “true
The structure of the sentence in French is meant to be clear and faithful to the logic. As illustration, the writer cited the syntactic order in French: subject-verb-object. Speaking highly of French grammar, “what is not clear is not French”, Rivarol blamed the languages with inversions. Unlike the French syntax, which he described as “a straight line”, idioms such as Greek and Latin confused locators by leading them into a grammatical labyrinth. Due to inversion traps, Latin or Greek prose lost their clarity and accuracy. However, the only weak point that Rivarol reproached French consisted in the incompatibility with music. According to the French pamphleteer, the rigid structure of French clashed with meandering chord of musical notes. However, this constancy of the order was the reason why philosophers adopted the French language. As regards the French pronunciation, Rivarol characterised it as sweet, soft and gracious “marked by the French character”.[15] Finally, he attempted to answer to the second question posed by the Berlin Academy, namely, why could French deserve the prerogative of the universal language. The European continent forms a remarkable diversity of kingdoms and peoples. In order to guarantee the stability of all the nations, it seemed indispensable to have a common model. In this regards, French represented the only linguistic example capable of transposing its regular order and constancy to anyone who would speak it. According to Antoine Rivarol, language is the painting of our ideas. Therefore, the choice of the French language was not only advisable but also necessary for Europe. As far as the future of French was concerned, the writer remained optimistic. According to him, the universality of French and the immortality of its literature would not hand their power to another language anytime soon. He finished his essay on notes that could appear somewhat naïve to the 21st century reader. Indeed, Rivarol named France as the country that liberated America. French, in this case is depicted as the language of Peace.
Criticisms
Numerous critics reproached Rivarol for partiality in the defence of the French language in his essay, and for having based his reasoning on arguments that he himself described as delicate:
- The central position of France in Europe,
- Its political constitution,
- The genius of French writers,
- The temper of its inhabitants and
- The image that France projected to the world.
All these aspects made French a predominant tongue according to him.
Rivarol was also lambasted for having underestimated the culture of French neighbours. Scholars accused him of ignorance of northern countries, of their languages and values. Without providing any statistical data or objective evidence, Rivarol tended to generalize his statements. His nationalist and Francocentrist sensibility earned him the designation of a controversial writer.
References
- ^ Académie de Berlin.Discours sur l’universalité de la langue française, éd. Th Suran, Paris, 1930
- ^ Rivarol pp130
- ^ Rivarol pp 132
- ^ Rivarol pp 133
- ^ Rivarol pp 134
- ^ Rivarol pp 135
- ^ a b Rivarol pp 136
- ^ Rivarol pp 138
- ^ Rivarol pp 143
- ^ a b Rivarol pp 144
- ^ Rivarol pp 145
- ^ Rivarol pp 161
- ^ Rivarol pp 153
- ^ Rivarol pp 174
- ^ Rivarol pp 168
Further reading
- Académie de Berlin. De l'universalité européenne de la langue française-1784. Paris : Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1995
- Brunot, F. Histoire de la Langue française, T. VIII, 2e partie, pp. 839–914, Paris : Armand Colin, 1967
- Michel Cointat. Rivarol (1753-1801) : Un écrivain controversé. Paris : L'Harmattan, 2003
- Gabriel de Broglie. Le Français pour qu'il vive. Paris : Gallimard, Paris, 1987