Reading report: Lionel MENEY, Sociolinguistics between science and ideology. A response to Linguists Atterrées. Éditions Lambert-Lucas, 2024. ISBN: 978-2-35935-445-4
(Franco-Quebec linguist, Lionel Meney (LM) spent his entire career (1969-2004) at Laval University (Quebec). His teaching and work focused on the comparative study of Quebec French and international french, as well as on ideology in the representations of the language.)
In his latest book, Sociolinguistics between science and ideology. A response to Linguists Atterrées, LM takes a (very) critical look at a pamphlet published in 2023 in the Tracts Gallimard collection, entitled French is going very well, thank you.. The author of this " Leaflet " is identified on the cover page under a cryptic "linguists appalled" (The LA). There is here an invitation to the connected reader – too bad for the others! – to recognize in the typographic process of the grayed letter a variant of the so-called "inclusive" writing. It is by referring to the end of the work that one finds an alphabetical list of the nineteen members of the collective thus designated, all, except two, university linguists.
As LM suggests, the name of this collective echoes the Manifesto of shocked economists, published in 2011, in which economists opposed to "neo-liberal orthodoxy" expressed themselves, with the difference however that, from indefinite, the determiner "of" was changed to a definite article: " The linguists". LM does not specify this, but it is probably to be understood that the signatories see themselves as the natural and recognized representatives of this profession within a higher group comprising all the "dismayed" in society, thus revealing the militant conception of their commitment against social forces deemed oppressive and retrograde. In this regard, the columns denouncing such a position, published in the press under the signature of several eminent linguists (cf. Le Figaro 24/05/23; Marianne 17/04/23; see also Marianne 18/09/20 on inclusive writing), should shake the aplomb with which the authors of the Leaflet act as messengers for the entire profession.
LM devotes a significant part of his introduction (pp. 12-15) to recalling, by means of quotations, the role of white knights that the LA gives themselves ("We, linguists..."), who have come to defend "the general public", "children handicapped by spelling", "the young, the provincials, the Belgians [sic]", as well as "entire categories of people deprived of speech by purists", by means of linguistics "a science using rigorous methods". Their adversaries? The French Academy, the Parisian elites, the purists, the "dictionaries established in Paris", the grammatical norm and, above all, dictation, which penalizes error, stigmatizes and traumatizes, to which one must prefer the exposition of linguistic rules. The LA thus pride themselves on leading a "democratic" fight to allow "each and every person to re-appropriate their language".
LM's work includes eight chapters for a total of 74 pages, which successively address several of the main themes presented by the LA in their Leaflet : "French is no longer 'the language of Molière'", "French does not belong to France", "French is not 'invaded' by English", "French does not have perfect spelling", "inclusive writing does not @damage French", "French is not 'in peril' in the face of the extension of the feminine", "linguist, it's a profession". The conclusion is followed by a 16-page afterword, entitled "Sociolinguistics and ideology in Quebec", and finally, by a bibliography and a table of contents.
LM takes care to clearly cite the passages he discusses, so that it is easy to refer in parallel to the Leaflet LAs throughout the reading. LM also chooses to support the argument deployed by the LAs by citing other texts, written by members of the LA collective or developing similar theses. His critical analysis is itself enriched with numerous references and statistics which support his argument.
I will give here only a few examples of the points raised by LM. He thus returns (pp. 38-40) to the relentlessness of the LA against the Académie française, whose members would be doubly disqualified by the fact that, not being linguists themselves, they aggravate their case by using the services of simple agrégés de lettres (understand: not linguists either…). The uselessness of the Académie française would also be confirmed by the absence of such an institution in English-speaking countries. An unfounded assertion, says LM, for whom "[t]he absence of an academy does not mean the absence of linguistic standards, and of pressure to enforce them" (p.40). One thinks in fact of the major role played in these countries by reference dictionaries (cf. in particular theOxford English Dictionary and Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language), as well as by the numerous and essential guides to good usage (see the Oxford Style Manual, Chicago Manual of Style, MLA Handbook, Guide to Canadian English Usage, etc.).
LM also mentions the treatment reserved in the Leaflet to French spelling (pp. 41-49) and the authors' disappointment that it represents a "social norm", something which would be for them "completely incongruous in other languages". But this is also to ignore reality, says LM (p.43), who recalls the well-established tradition of spelling games and competitions (Spelling bee) in all English-speaking countries, including Africa. LM also shows that the Leaflet reveals divergent points of view among its authors, who sometimes castigate spelling, an instrument of social domination, sometimes lament that it is in clear decline (p. 45). This does not, however, affect the enthusiasm with which they welcome "digital writing" (pp. 51-56), supposed to allow "free and spontaneous writing", the LA being thus convinced that this is a variety of French among others, testifying to a "very great richness" (p. 51). LM argues here against what he calls "the myth of freedom and spontaneity", recalling that any form of writing "presupposes the existence of a code shared by the sender and the receiver".
The heart of LM's work is chapter 7 (pp. 57-84), where the author critiques the passage from Leaflet entitled “French is not ‘in danger’ in the face of the extension of the feminine”.
The main idea here is that "for human nouns, grammatical gender tends to be interpreted as social gender" (Leaflet, p. 49), which would categorically invalidate any idea that the masculine can play the role of a grammatical neuter. In support of this position, the Leaflet makes explicit reference to the concept of "sexuisemblance", theorized by the physician-psychoanalyst Edouard Pichon, co-author with Jacques Damourette of a seven-volume treatise on French grammar (From words to thought, 1911-1927). For the psychoanalyst-grammarian, the Latin word sea, for example, would have gone from neutral to feminine in French, in the form of the word the sea, because "[t]he sea is changeable in appearance like a woman, daily, mobile in mood like a pretty capricious woman, attractive and dangerous like a perfidious beauty. The city dweller who devotes his holidays to it is in love with it; it is the sailor's murderous lover [...]" (From words to thought, t.1, pp.371-372). If the Leaflet is careful not to cite such lucubrations, LM does not, however, deprive himself of edifying his readers (p. 58). In this same chapter, he also addresses the central role of the assertion of the LA according to which the neutral does not exist in French, and devotes several pages to demonstrating the opposite (pp. 59-68), recalling in particular the commonly accepted thesis that the French neutral adopts the morphology of the masculine (pp. 62-64).
On the contentious subject of inclusive writing, LM is surprised that the Leaflet devotes only a very small amount of space to it (one paragraph!), and does not explain the surprising choice of an original typography (the grayed-out E in "les linguistes atterrées") rather than the midpoint, the use of which is predominant among "inclusivists". He underlines the embarrassment of the LA who must recognize that inclusive writing makes reading less fluid (p.68) but remain nonetheless convinced that it is only a question of habituation.
These few insights are only an illustration of the rich argument that LM deploys in his work. He read the Leaflet very carefully and, with a good knowledge of the topics covered, easily manages to offer a convincing refutation of the theses presented there.
LM's book is easy to read. It does not claim to close the debate, and is clearly intended for a non-specialist audience. If the author lets here and there show the irritation that may have pushed him to react to the Leaflet of the LA, he does not give in to the ease of polemic and manages to maintain the reader's interest through the coherence of the critical responses he provides.