The National Education Scientific Council (CSEN) has worked on a report entitled “Rationalizing French spelling to better teach it”. Why such an initiative? As this work amply documents, the unnecessary complexities of our spelling hinder the proper acquisition of reading and writing, and therefore also hinder access to literature and school learning. Compared to our Spanish or Finnish neighbors, French students waste considerable time trying to master the arbitrary curiosities of our spelling, time that others devote to much more useful learning. In addition to slowing down all students, this complexity also exacerbates the difficulties of dyslexic students.
Moreover, spelling has become a vector of unfair discrimination, and this partly by design. No one said it as clearly as the academician François Eudes de Mézeray in 1673: spelling “distinguishes men of letters from the ignorant and simple women” (sic). To which one can easily retort according to the adage that “spelling is the science of donkeys”. In any case, it is a system that is too arbitrary, too incoherent and too intellectually hollow to be a legitimate basis for academic selection or any judgment on a person’s merits.
As is the case every time someone dares to challenge this very French totem that is spelling, one can expect an avalanche of outraged reactions. Defenders of the status quo have no shortage of arguments to justify putting French spelling under wraps. However, most of these arguments are fallacious or based on myths. Let’s review a few of them.
“Orthography reflects the etymology and history of our language.” The history of language is an extremely interesting subject, which should be taught more systematically. This can be done by the explicit comparison of our contemporary language with its earlier versions, and with other living and ancient languages. But this does not imply that we should eternally preserve in our orthography all the fossils of ancient languages. SpanishTHE Russians And many others have purified their spelling of all these traces, and yet their civilization has not collapsed, and they can still study the history of their language.
“Spelling reflects the grammar of our language; a simplification would erase important grammatical distinctions.” In fact, these distinctions no longer exist in the language, that is, in spoken French. We do not miss them, however.
It is difficult today to read the original version by Corneille or Molière.
“Spelling allows us to distinguish homophones.” Certainly. But spoken language does not distinguish them, and nevertheless the context allows us to understand our interlocutors without difficulty. A totally phonetic writing would not be more difficult to understand than spoken language.
“We could no longer read the classics in their original spelling.” This has not been the case for a long time. You already read La Fontaine, Molière and Corneille in modernized spelling, because it would be too difficult to read them in their original spelling. This clearly does not prevent you from appreciating them.
“In the past, all students knew how to write French correctly. If this is no longer the case, it is the fault of poor teaching.” As is often the case, memories of the “good old days” are false. The CSEN report, based on objective data, establishes on the contrary that French spelling has been a problem for students at all times. Its mastery has undoubtedly declined over the last few decades, but this is simply because less and less time is devoted to teaching it.
“Simplifying spelling would mean lowering the level of academic requirements.” The level of requirements of school curricula is not an end in itself, but a means to an end: acquiring the knowledge and skills essential to every citizen. If French students could waste less time learning the incongruities of our spelling, they could spend more time on the really important things to learn: literature, mathematics, science, history and geography, etc.
“One word in two has changed spelling since 1694!”
“Spelling is a useful difficulty for the formation of a rigorous mind.” School subjects such as mathematics or science contribute to this objective much better than incoherent spelling, the difficulties of which are to be mastered only for their own sake.
“We cannot legislate on language.” Indeed, all linguists agree that there is no higher authority defining language: French is the language spoken by the French, as they speak and write it. On the other hand, spelling is a conventional transcription of the language, and like any convention, it is useful to have an authority ensure that everyone uses the same one.
“You want to erase the beauty and richness of the French language.” This is yet another confusion between language and spelling. Spoken and written French is beautiful and rich, and will remain so. Its spelling, on the other hand, is only a transcription of it. The opacity of spelling does not make the language more beautiful, it just makes it more difficult to read and write. As Voltaire said almost three centuries ago: “Writing is the painting of the voice: the more it resembles, the better it is.”
“French spelling is our immutable heritage; it would be neither desirable nor feasible to change it.” However, this has already been done many times, notably in 1740, 1762, 1878, 1900, 1935, 1976… In fact, one word in two has changed spelling since the first dictionary of the Academy in 1694!
There would clearly be practical difficulties of implementation, costs of adaptation and reprinting, and a transition period. But the only real obstacle is the conservatism of all those for whom habit has acquired the force of law, and who rationalize their habit by maintaining the above myths. If there is one thing that can be criticized about the CSEN report, it is that the proposed rationalization is still very timid. My personal opinion is that, if we are going to rationalize spelling, we might as well do it all the way and make it totally phonetic, to maximize the ease of learning, reading and writing it.