(Reposting here from 1729) Fantastic article! It's good that you cite David A. Bell: most French people don't know that 100 years ago, most "French" didn't speak French. The French language only started to spread among the lower classes with 1/ free mandatory education (Jules Ferry Laws, 1881 & 1882) and 2/ forced conscription during World War I + mixed combat units with soldiers from all over France (to avoid having soldiers only speaking their local language in a unit).
"as the majority of books were printed in this language, it spread throughout the country much faster and farther than the others.": I think this was only true among the minority of literate people. Even for them, it took time for French to displace Latin as the main literary language: "Even during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, students at the Sorbonne who were caught speaking French on university grounds—or in the surrounding Latin Quarter—were castigated and risked expulsion from the university. Indeed, the Sorbonne's famed Latin Quarter is believed to have earned its sobriquet precisely because it remained a sanctuary for the language long after the waning of Latin—and an ivory tower of sorts—where only Latin was tolerated as a spoken language. Even René Descartes (1596-1659), the father of Cartesian logic and French rationalism was driven to apologize for having dared use vernacular French—as opposed to his times' hallowed and learned Latin—when writing his famous treatise, Discours de la Méthode, close to a century after Du Bellay's Déffence." (source: https://www.meforum.org/3066/does-anyone-speak-arabic )
Hello Antoine. You are right... for the first 150 years after the invention of the printing press. It is the time it took to saturate the wide but thin market of Latin readers.
For, then as now, the percentage of the population that was monolingual was much higher than the bilingual one.
Then, capitalism made sure that the printers would try to find ways to expand their market, and they did that by printing books in the local language that was the most popular.
It's possible that these local languages were viewed with contempt by academics, but they weren't the target market: it was the class educated enough to read in the local language, but not educated enough to read Latin, typically merchants and bourgeois.
Then, "these print-languages laid the bases for national consciousnesses in three distinct ways. First and foremost, they created unified fields of exchange and communication below Latin and above the spoken vernaculars. Speakers of the huge variety of Frenches, Englishes, or Spanishes, who might find it difficult or even impossible to understand one another in conversation, became capable of comprehending one another via print and paper. In the process, they gradually became aware of the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people in their particular language-field, and at the same time that only those hundreds of thousands, or millions, so belonged. These fellow-readers, to whom they were connected through print, formed, in their secular, particular, visible invisibility, the embryo of the nationally imagined community."
It is a quote from the book "Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism”, Benedict Anderson, 1983.
I highly encourage you to read it if you want to know more about how the printing press and capitalism helped one national language won over per country (in general) rather than all the regional varieties.
I assume that these people were mostly urban dwellers and therefore French speakers, as French first replaced local languages in cities. The vernaculars of France aren't "variety of Frenches" so speakers of non French languages couldn't understand French books (and probably couldn't read anyway).
I feel like, as you said, the market was literate people who didn't know enough Latin. Most of these people spoke some kind of French whereas the market for Euskara, Corsican, etc. was super small. Also, I guess the majority of French speakers AND French authors lived around Paris. So Parisian French became the literary standard and spread through the country. This process helped to unify the "varieties of Frenches". And then because all knowledge and learning opportunities were in French, non-French speakers had huge incentives to learn French.
This process also explains why Alsacian and Corsican are stronger today than other local languages: the literate Alsacian and Corsican bourgeoisie could speak both French and their local language. So they could read books in standard French and in the standardized variety of their local language (respectively standard German and standard Italian) and had access to huge resources in both languages. Whereas Breton had almost no literature. Still: why do local languages in overseas territories resist that well? I assume that, for a long time, many locals were excluded from the education system and didn't learn French and that economic opportunities were local and didn't require to learn French. There's also an ideological component: speaking one's heritage language is a way to resist to the State. That's probably why local languages are still strong in Spain as well. The situation of Catalan, Occitan and Euskara in France vs Spain is noteworthy. (I learned Occitan btw and it was part of my Baccalauréat 😂)
Anyway I love this topic and as you rightly point out in your article it's crazy that most people don't realize that being "French" is a fairly recent social construct. Thanks again for this great article!
>Do we have data on the % of books published in Latin vs French vs other languages (occitan, brezhoneg, euskara, etc.) over time by any chance?
I didn't see any during my researches, but I was not looking for it, it would be very interesting to have some !
>the vernaculars of France aren't "variety of Frenches" so speakers of non French languages couldn't understand French books
I don't agree, all the vernacular languages of France *with Latin roots* are Romance languages, and as such, are related to French, those closest geographically being the closest linguistically.
Look at this text in Ch'ti for example, and you'll see that there's a great deal of overlap with French:
>So Parisian French became the literary standard and spread through the country. This process helped to unify the "varieties of Frenches". And then because all knowledge and learning opportunities were in French, non-French speakers had huge incentives to learn French.
Yes !
>This process also explains why Alsacian and Corsican are stronger today than other local languages: the literate Alsacian and Corsican bourgeoisie could speak both French and their local language.
You are probably right, I need to research this more.
But you will notice that most of the strongest regional languages in France *don't* have Latin roots : Breton is a Celtic language, Alsacien is a Germanic language, Basque is its own family. So it's probably a factor.
Corsican has Latin roots, but insular languages are a thing of their own, and Corsican is the most remote of all the regional Romance languages of France. It is closer to Italian than French.
>Still: why do local languages in overseas territories resist that well?
In general, the "marches" and isolated regions (mountains, islands, especially remote ones) are those least influenced by the nation-building process.
>That's probably why local languages are still strong in Spain as well.
Catalan is directly tied to the very independent spirit of Catalonia, the product of the Kingdom of Aragon that was not integrated enough in Castille.
I need to research this more, but the strongest influence of local languages in Spain maybe points to a process of nation building that was not as strong as the one in France ? It's certainly the case in Catalonia.
When I wrote "the vernaculars of France aren't "variety of Frenches" " I meant the non-French varieties (whether they are Romance languages or not) so Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Brezhoneg, Euskara, Alsacian, Flemish, etc. Of course the langues d'oïl such as chti/Picard form a dialect continuum with high mutual intelligibility. (still, it's easy to understand written chti but good luck to have a conversation 😂)
I don't think that not belonging to the Romance family makes local languages stronger. Euskara and Breton are actually quite weak in France. You'll never see people speaking them in the street. Whereas you can find people speaking Corsican in the street. And a bit Occitan in the countryside. And on the other hand, Spanish and Catalan are super close and Catalan is still strong. You have the same thing in Switzerland and Bavaria between the local German "dialect" (a different language from a linguistic point of view, as different as French is from Catalan or Italian) and standard German): despite being from the same language family they coexist.
For sure France had a strong nation building policy. Franco tried to replicate this in Spain and... banned local languages!
Btw "Corsican is the most remote of all the regional Romance languages of France": I don't think that Corsican is more remote than Catalan or Occitan (especially Gascon and Niçard). And definitely not more than monégasque/ligure/royasque.
(Reposting here from 1729) Fantastic article! It's good that you cite David A. Bell: most French people don't know that 100 years ago, most "French" didn't speak French. The French language only started to spread among the lower classes with 1/ free mandatory education (Jules Ferry Laws, 1881 & 1882) and 2/ forced conscription during World War I + mixed combat units with soldiers from all over France (to avoid having soldiers only speaking their local language in a unit).
"as the majority of books were printed in this language, it spread throughout the country much faster and farther than the others.": I think this was only true among the minority of literate people. Even for them, it took time for French to displace Latin as the main literary language: "Even during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, students at the Sorbonne who were caught speaking French on university grounds—or in the surrounding Latin Quarter—were castigated and risked expulsion from the university. Indeed, the Sorbonne's famed Latin Quarter is believed to have earned its sobriquet precisely because it remained a sanctuary for the language long after the waning of Latin—and an ivory tower of sorts—where only Latin was tolerated as a spoken language. Even René Descartes (1596-1659), the father of Cartesian logic and French rationalism was driven to apologize for having dared use vernacular French—as opposed to his times' hallowed and learned Latin—when writing his famous treatise, Discours de la Méthode, close to a century after Du Bellay's Déffence." (source: https://www.meforum.org/3066/does-anyone-speak-arabic )
Hello Antoine. You are right... for the first 150 years after the invention of the printing press. It is the time it took to saturate the wide but thin market of Latin readers.
For, then as now, the percentage of the population that was monolingual was much higher than the bilingual one.
Then, capitalism made sure that the printers would try to find ways to expand their market, and they did that by printing books in the local language that was the most popular.
It's possible that these local languages were viewed with contempt by academics, but they weren't the target market: it was the class educated enough to read in the local language, but not educated enough to read Latin, typically merchants and bourgeois.
Then, "these print-languages laid the bases for national consciousnesses in three distinct ways. First and foremost, they created unified fields of exchange and communication below Latin and above the spoken vernaculars. Speakers of the huge variety of Frenches, Englishes, or Spanishes, who might find it difficult or even impossible to understand one another in conversation, became capable of comprehending one another via print and paper. In the process, they gradually became aware of the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people in their particular language-field, and at the same time that only those hundreds of thousands, or millions, so belonged. These fellow-readers, to whom they were connected through print, formed, in their secular, particular, visible invisibility, the embryo of the nationally imagined community."
It is a quote from the book "Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism”, Benedict Anderson, 1983.
I highly encourage you to read it if you want to know more about how the printing press and capitalism helped one national language won over per country (in general) rather than all the regional varieties.
Thanks. Do we have data on the % of books published in Latin vs French vs other languages (occitan, brezhoneg, euskara, etc.) over time by any chance?
On the eve of the Revolution, one third of the population was literate:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cross-country-literacy-rates?country=~FRA
I assume that these people were mostly urban dwellers and therefore French speakers, as French first replaced local languages in cities. The vernaculars of France aren't "variety of Frenches" so speakers of non French languages couldn't understand French books (and probably couldn't read anyway).
I feel like, as you said, the market was literate people who didn't know enough Latin. Most of these people spoke some kind of French whereas the market for Euskara, Corsican, etc. was super small. Also, I guess the majority of French speakers AND French authors lived around Paris. So Parisian French became the literary standard and spread through the country. This process helped to unify the "varieties of Frenches". And then because all knowledge and learning opportunities were in French, non-French speakers had huge incentives to learn French.
This process also explains why Alsacian and Corsican are stronger today than other local languages: the literate Alsacian and Corsican bourgeoisie could speak both French and their local language. So they could read books in standard French and in the standardized variety of their local language (respectively standard German and standard Italian) and had access to huge resources in both languages. Whereas Breton had almost no literature. Still: why do local languages in overseas territories resist that well? I assume that, for a long time, many locals were excluded from the education system and didn't learn French and that economic opportunities were local and didn't require to learn French. There's also an ideological component: speaking one's heritage language is a way to resist to the State. That's probably why local languages are still strong in Spain as well. The situation of Catalan, Occitan and Euskara in France vs Spain is noteworthy. (I learned Occitan btw and it was part of my Baccalauréat 😂)
Anyway I love this topic and as you rightly point out in your article it's crazy that most people don't realize that being "French" is a fairly recent social construct. Thanks again for this great article!
>Do we have data on the % of books published in Latin vs French vs other languages (occitan, brezhoneg, euskara, etc.) over time by any chance?
I didn't see any during my researches, but I was not looking for it, it would be very interesting to have some !
>the vernaculars of France aren't "variety of Frenches" so speakers of non French languages couldn't understand French books
I don't agree, all the vernacular languages of France *with Latin roots* are Romance languages, and as such, are related to French, those closest geographically being the closest linguistically.
Look at this text in Ch'ti for example, and you'll see that there's a great deal of overlap with French:
L'aute jour pour ramasser mes pronnes
J'a pris dins l'armoire inne maronne
Après avoir chés gambes fich'lées
J'a comminché à ramasser
Ch'étot vraimint très rigolo
Ej'n'a bien mis chinquante kilos
J'étos même très fier de m'n'affaire
In aurot cru inne montgolfière !
(you can see the original text here: http://michellehautmont.e-monsite.com/pages/textes-en-patois-du-nord/texte-en-patois-du-nord-de-la-france-a-lire-doucement-pour-comprendre-si-vous-n-etes-pas-du-nord.html . I'm not saying it is easy to understand for a French speaker, but yes, you can definitely get the meaning of the text. The degree of mutual intercomprehension is far higher than with Spanish or Italian)
>So Parisian French became the literary standard and spread through the country. This process helped to unify the "varieties of Frenches". And then because all knowledge and learning opportunities were in French, non-French speakers had huge incentives to learn French.
Yes !
>This process also explains why Alsacian and Corsican are stronger today than other local languages: the literate Alsacian and Corsican bourgeoisie could speak both French and their local language.
You are probably right, I need to research this more.
But you will notice that most of the strongest regional languages in France *don't* have Latin roots : Breton is a Celtic language, Alsacien is a Germanic language, Basque is its own family. So it's probably a factor.
Corsican has Latin roots, but insular languages are a thing of their own, and Corsican is the most remote of all the regional Romance languages of France. It is closer to Italian than French.
>Still: why do local languages in overseas territories resist that well?
In general, the "marches" and isolated regions (mountains, islands, especially remote ones) are those least influenced by the nation-building process.
>That's probably why local languages are still strong in Spain as well.
Catalan is directly tied to the very independent spirit of Catalonia, the product of the Kingdom of Aragon that was not integrated enough in Castille.
I need to research this more, but the strongest influence of local languages in Spain maybe points to a process of nation building that was not as strong as the one in France ? It's certainly the case in Catalonia.
When I wrote "the vernaculars of France aren't "variety of Frenches" " I meant the non-French varieties (whether they are Romance languages or not) so Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Brezhoneg, Euskara, Alsacian, Flemish, etc. Of course the langues d'oïl such as chti/Picard form a dialect continuum with high mutual intelligibility. (still, it's easy to understand written chti but good luck to have a conversation 😂)
I don't think that not belonging to the Romance family makes local languages stronger. Euskara and Breton are actually quite weak in France. You'll never see people speaking them in the street. Whereas you can find people speaking Corsican in the street. And a bit Occitan in the countryside. And on the other hand, Spanish and Catalan are super close and Catalan is still strong. You have the same thing in Switzerland and Bavaria between the local German "dialect" (a different language from a linguistic point of view, as different as French is from Catalan or Italian) and standard German): despite being from the same language family they coexist.
For sure France had a strong nation building policy. Franco tried to replicate this in Spain and... banned local languages!
Btw "Corsican is the most remote of all the regional Romance languages of France": I don't think that Corsican is more remote than Catalan or Occitan (especially Gascon and Niçard). And definitely not more than monégasque/ligure/royasque.