What do you think?
Rate this book
The Story of French
Why does everything sound better if it's said in French? That fascination is at the heart of The Story of French, the first history of one of the most beautiful languages in the world that was, at one time, the pre-eminent language of literature, science and diplomacy. Nadeau and Barlow chart the history of a language spoken as a native tongue by 130 million people around the globe. The first document written in the French was signed by the sons of Charlemagne in 832. After this, Latin was purged from the courts of France by Francois 1st, giving root to French speakers' 21st century obsession with language protection. The obsession progressed as Cardinal Richelieu established the French Academy, a group entrusted with the responsibility of keeping the language pure and eloquent. As French circled the globe, the international cast of characters included Montaigne, Catherine the Great, Frederic II of Prussia, the guides of the Lewis and Clark expedition, Jules Verne, and others. Let Nadeau and Barlow guide you through the story of a language used to write some of the world's great masterpieces of literature, construct some of the most important documents of diplomacy, bedevil millions with its vagaries of pronunciation and beguile everyone with its beauty.
496 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 28, 2002
243 people are currently reading
2110 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Benoît Nadeau
24 books64 followersAuthor, journalist and conference speaker, Jean-Benoît Nadeau has published seven books, over 900 magazine articles, won over 40 awards in journalism and literature, and given more than 80 lectures on language, culture and writing. His books include Sixty Million Frenchmen Can’t Be Wrong, The Story of French and The Story of Spanish, which he co-authored with his wife, Julie Barlow. He currently resides in Paris, France, with his wife and their twin daughters.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 155 reviews
July 15, 2009
This is another book that took me forever to read because I savored and annotated it to the point of compulsion. Authors Jean-Benoit Nadau and Julie Barlow, Canadians who are life partners as well as writing partners, earlier wrote a book called Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't be Wrong, which I also enjoyed. While the first book was about understanding contemporary France and French people, The Story of French is a much more global look at the French language, how it began, developed, and where it is going in the future. The history is interesting, but I was much more fascinated with the discussion of how French has spread globally due mostly to France's 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th-century colinization efforts in North America, Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and the South Pacific. I especially enjoyed the descriptions of Quebec's efforts to preserve the purity of the French language. Whereas the French themselves have become a little complacent lately in allowing English words to invade their language, the scrappy Quebecois (of whom author Nadeau is a part) are adament about giving every new technological or pop culture word a French language equivalent. The authors discuss the advent of francophonie (with a small f), which is the global collection of all French-speaking countries, and La Francophonie (with a capital F), which is an official organization, not unlike the British Commonwealth, that attempts to keep the French language thriving and growing globally. The Francophonie has such unlikely members as Bulgaria, Romania, Cambodia, Laos, and Moldava, which have a lot of French speakers and want to see the language preserved in their countries. However, Algeria, whose Arab-Muslim population is still peeved at the French, refuses to join the Francophonie, but still keeps the French language thriving in the country, since they learned the hard way that using French is more advantageous to their development than falling back on Arabic. The authors assert that the importance of French as a global language is not going to diminish any time soon, but they suggest the concept of pluralingualism--the embracing of more than one language in various societies--to keep all sorts of languages thriving. Tables in the back of the book contain a lot of interesting statistics that rank world languages in order of use. For example, French is second only to English as the most influential language in the world, French is the second-most used language of the Internet, and French ranks ninth in the world for the most speakers, behind English, Spanish, Hindi and Chinese, but neck-and-neck with Portugese, and well ahead of German, Japanese and Arabic.
April 13, 2022
This book has a standard thematic structure, being divided into four sections, covering the origins of French, its spread as a diplomatic and cultural standard, its adaptation in a changing world, and its current position and potential future. Each of those sections is interesting in its own right, but what really makes the book worth reading is the way it is full of little language facts, the kind of things that made me say, “Hmm, I didn’t know that” over and over. I actually saved ninety-seven passages as I was reading (thank you, Kindle ebook format, for allowing text to be easily marked and saved). The book is much more than just fun facts, and is worth reading for anyone interested in languages, but I decided that instead of writing a real review I would just present some of the passages I highlighted.
- The most that can be said is that before French there were many Romance languages; before that there was Gallo-Roman; before that there was Latin, and before that, Gaulish.
- The first Celts arrived with their Indo-European tongue in what is today northern France sometime during the first millennium BCE.
- The Gaulish language ended up contributing very little to the vocabulary of modern French. Only about a hundred Gaulish words survived the centuries, mostly rural and agricultural terms
- Nearly half of the commonly used words in English—for example, chase, catch, surf, challenge and staunch—are of French origin.
- Warranty and guarantee are the same word, pronounced with a Norman and a Françoys accent respectively; this difference in pronunciation also explains how Guillaume became William, guerre became war, and Gaul became Walloon.
- the lettrés, primarily notaries and clerks, started introducing unpronounced letters to distinguish words. H was a popular one—they decided to add it to vile and vit, so “oil” and “eight” came to be written hvile and hvit to distinguish them from vile (city) and vit (he lives). Latin etymology was an important source of new letters. That’s why a G was added to doi and vint, which became doigt (finger), from digitus and vingt (twenty) from viginti. Since chan could mean “field” or “song,” it became champ (field), in imitation of the Latin campus, and chant (song), in imitation of cantus.
- In some modern languages today, such as Spanish and Arabic, spellings are phonetic. English and French are both notable for having maintained etymological spellings (that is, based on historic forms of the words), a trend that dates back to the twelfth century in the case of French.
- before [François de] Malherbe it was common to borrow terms from other languages; because of him, it became a mark of ignorance. That standard would last for the next two centuries, and still remains at the root of the debate over anglicisms.
- members of the Academy steered away from phonetic spellings because they were afraid of looking ignorant of the historical roots of a word. But this orientation was also the expression of a class struggle. The lettered class promoted complicated spellings as a way of holding on to power; by making it hard to learn French, they made it harder for anyone outside their class to enter the circles of power.
- The reputation—or notoriety—of the French Academy is owed to a misconception. Outside of France it is seen as a kind of language police. In reality the Academy has never passed laws on language use; it has no authority to....the real role of the Academy is to preside over the French language, rather like a House of Lords for culture. Sometimes the Academy does act, as when it accepted spelling reforms in the early 1990s. At other times its inaction is conspicuous, as in 1997, when it refused to accept the feminization of titles
- There is no equivalent in French of the Oxford English Dictionary. From its inception, the OED was meant to be a vocabulary collection and a great inventory of archaisms and regionalisms—almost half the words on any given page are no longer used. In comparison, French lexicographers do their spring cleaning regularly so that the language doesn’t hold on to words it doesn’t need.
- The logic of French purism since Malherbe has been that each word should have a precise definition; no two words are perfectly synonymous. In Webster’s English dictionary the word tolerate has a definition. But “put up with” is defined merely as “tolerate,” without further explanation. No French dictionary would ever do that.
- if the English dictionary is like an inventory, the French dictionary is like a tool-box, with words divided up into categories, each with specific instructions about how to use it.
- Unlike the French, the English never felt it necessary to define their language (or their civil law, or even their constitution, for that matter).
- Of the world’s 127 Creoles, thirty-five are English-based and fourteen are French-based. There are more speakers of French-based Creoles than all other Creoles combined (including English), thanks mostly to Haiti,
- Grammatically, [in Haiti] gender disappeared and all words became neutral. The five articles usually follow the noun; la pomme (the apple) is pom-la. Verbs are not conjugated (with endings, as in French), but constructed, like most English tenses, with a pre-verb marker to indicate the tense.
- The French never did send enough colonists to the New World. In 1600 France’s population was four times larger than Britain’s. But in the New World, British settlers far outnumbered the French, right from the start. In 1620 there were already a thousand Virginians while French settlers numbered no more than a hundred in Quebec and Acadia combined.
- By 1700 New France had attracted only ten thousand colonists, compared to some 150,000 settlers spread out among the thirteen British colonies.
- one British subject in six lived in the colonies, compared to one Frenchman in three hundred.
- relatively few Huguenots traveled from France to New France. Richelieu forbade them to emigrate to the New World; he feared, with reason, that they would side with fellow Protestants when they got there and switch allegiance to the British Crown.
- French became the language of diplomacy in Europe less because of the power of France than because of the power of French. A class of career diplomats had begun to appear at the time. Many of them were also career soldiers, and soldiers, who usually joined the military at a young age, rarely knew Latin.
- French remained the sole language of high diplomacy in Europe until 1919.
- At the time of the Revolution, not even half of France’s population spoke French fluently, and another twenty-five percent had no understanding of it at all. By the Second World War virtually all of the French understood the language, and most of them spoke it well—although fifty percent of the population still spoke their regional language as a mother tongue.
- francophones—particularly, but not only, the French—are known for trying to speak as they write (formally, with rules), rather than write as they speak (informally, favouring effective communication, an approach widely associated with the writing of English speakers).
- Purism also gave francophones the idea that the language is its spelling, to the extent that any attempt to change spellings was seen as an attack on French.
- Neologisms are the great evil of purism, which dictates that each word should have one definition and that there should be only one word for any given definition.
- Purists now distinguish between what they call “new words” and neologisms. A new word describes a new reality, whereas a neologism is a new word that describes a reality for which there is already an existing word. However, this almost theological nuance still doesn’t solve the problems that result from the stifling influence of purism.
- It was not schooling that hastened the waning of regional languages in France so much as compulsory military service and, later, the development of mass media. Few patois had up-to-date lexicons or grammar. As the common language, French took on the job of naming modern concepts, which meant that the patois were relegated more and more to traditional spheres of activity and private life—the classic prelude to assimilation.
- In the fifteenth century, Argot was the name of a crime syndicate of brigands, thieves and killers who spoke together in jargon (a deformation of the Norman word garg, throat).
- The Republic was radically antireligious, but it encouraged missionary work abroad. The French kicked the Jesuits out of France twice, in 1880 and 1901, but during the same period subsidized them heavily to continue their work abroad, particularly in Lebanon.
- the Catholic clergy in Quebec actually forbade the reading and viewing of France’s most cutting-edge writers and cinema, and preached against city life, industry and even money in general, which were considered Protestant and therefore immoral.
- the difference between Parisian and Canadian French is no greater than that between British English and the English spoken in Texas. There are dialectal differences, but never so extreme as to make them mutually unintelligible.
- An English listener is always surprised to learn that poutine is a corruption of the English pudding, itself a deformation of the French word boudin (a type of blood sausage).
- Between 1830 and 1871 the French changed regimes no fewer than four times, each time violently.
- By 1914 there were only forty million French people—a small increase from the twenty-eight million at the time of the Revolution. The British population had tripled to forty-three million by this time and the German to sixty-seven million.
- German chancellor Otto von Bismarck is famous for having said that the great event of the nineteenth century was that the United States spoke English.
- 750 African languages are spoken in the thirty French-speaking countries in Africa.
- half of the poorest countries in the world are members of the Francophonie
- English-speaking countries make regular appeals for the use of English (and the elimination of other languages) in international organizations for the sake of “simplicity” or “efficiency.”
- In the European Union, French and English were still on a par in 1997 as the primary language for written documents, with about forty-two percent each. But by 2003 English had risen to seventy-two percent while French had fallen to eighteen percent.
- now the French are beginning to group consonants in their sentences, at least through pronunciation, by dropping the vowels between consonants, especially the E’s. Sentences like “Je me le demande” (“I am wondering”) are now pronounced j’m’le d’mand or je me l’demand.
- in France and throughout the francophonie, speakers are tending more and more to substitute ‘on’ (one) for ‘nous’ (we) and drop the ne in the negative in ne…pas.
- the almost total extinction of an entire verb tense, the passé simple (simple past). This is true throughout the francophonie. Nobody says je marchai (I walked). They say j’ai marché (literally “I have walked,” but understood as “I walked”).
- the imparfait (imperfect, equivalent of the past continuous) for marcher is je marchais; for courir it’s je courais; and for voir it’s je voyais. But in the passé simple, endings vary according to the verb group, making these verbs je marchai, je courus, je vis. In the plural it gets even more complicated: vous marchâtes, vous courrûtes, vous vîtes.
- another verb tense, the subjonctif imparfait (past subjunctive), has been completely assimilated to the present subjunctive, or even the regular present tense, because of its clumsiness.
- “C’est la galère” (“It’s a grind”—from the word galley, or slave ship) has produced the verb galérer (to struggle), which in turn produced the noun galérien (unemployed).
- Borrowings from English are, of course, another important source of new vocabulary in French. The phenomenon was quite minor until the 1920s, but since then, thousands of English words have entered French usage.
- people have even created faux English terms such as footing (walking), lifting (facelift) and pressing (drycleaning), words that have no relation to their real meaning in English (the way that déjà-vu and potpourri don’t mean the same thing in French as in English;
- ‘double entendre’ doesn’t even exist in French.
- insistence on the decadence of French is, more than anything, the expression of a class struggle over who gets to set the standard. Most purists’ rants about declining French are simply cleverly disguised criticisms of what they regard as bad taste or unacceptable styles of speech.
- Anti-English declarations usually have more to do with diplomatic strategy than language per se.
- the French word for computer, ordinateur...was a creation of IBM France, which in 1954 found it had a problem with the word computer in French. Said with a French accent, the syllables of computer sound like a combination of the two worst possible insults in the French language: con (cunt) and pute (whore).
- Many French speakers are attracted to the relaxed aspect of English and to the no-fuss way in which that language adapts to modernity.
- In the world of literary non-fiction and journalism, which we know well, French editorial practices often work against the goal of clarity. The French publish articles without indented paragraphs and books without indexes; they often write in long, windy sentences, to the point where great thinkers such as Michel Foucault are more readable in their English translation than in the French original.
- Of the 1.4 million Americans who study language in institutions of higher learning, 53 percent have turned to Spanish and 15 percent to French
- Two centuries ago French was regarded as the universal language of Europe, even though it was confined to elite circles, and even though seventy-five percent of the French people did not yet speak it.
- Only twenty-five percent of Africans are fully schooled, and this proportion is dropping every year,
- The fringes of the French-speaking world are equally interesting. More French is spoken in Israel than in Louisiana (in both percentage and number of speakers),
- The most that can be said is that before French there were many Romance languages; before that there was Gallo-Roman; before that there was Latin, and before that, Gaulish.
- The first Celts arrived with their Indo-European tongue in what is today northern France sometime during the first millennium BCE.
- The Gaulish language ended up contributing very little to the vocabulary of modern French. Only about a hundred Gaulish words survived the centuries, mostly rural and agricultural terms
- Nearly half of the commonly used words in English—for example, chase, catch, surf, challenge and staunch—are of French origin.
- Warranty and guarantee are the same word, pronounced with a Norman and a Françoys accent respectively; this difference in pronunciation also explains how Guillaume became William, guerre became war, and Gaul became Walloon.
- the lettrés, primarily notaries and clerks, started introducing unpronounced letters to distinguish words. H was a popular one—they decided to add it to vile and vit, so “oil” and “eight” came to be written hvile and hvit to distinguish them from vile (city) and vit (he lives). Latin etymology was an important source of new letters. That’s why a G was added to doi and vint, which became doigt (finger), from digitus and vingt (twenty) from viginti. Since chan could mean “field” or “song,” it became champ (field), in imitation of the Latin campus, and chant (song), in imitation of cantus.
- In some modern languages today, such as Spanish and Arabic, spellings are phonetic. English and French are both notable for having maintained etymological spellings (that is, based on historic forms of the words), a trend that dates back to the twelfth century in the case of French.
- before [François de] Malherbe it was common to borrow terms from other languages; because of him, it became a mark of ignorance. That standard would last for the next two centuries, and still remains at the root of the debate over anglicisms.
- members of the Academy steered away from phonetic spellings because they were afraid of looking ignorant of the historical roots of a word. But this orientation was also the expression of a class struggle. The lettered class promoted complicated spellings as a way of holding on to power; by making it hard to learn French, they made it harder for anyone outside their class to enter the circles of power.
- The reputation—or notoriety—of the French Academy is owed to a misconception. Outside of France it is seen as a kind of language police. In reality the Academy has never passed laws on language use; it has no authority to....the real role of the Academy is to preside over the French language, rather like a House of Lords for culture. Sometimes the Academy does act, as when it accepted spelling reforms in the early 1990s. At other times its inaction is conspicuous, as in 1997, when it refused to accept the feminization of titles
- There is no equivalent in French of the Oxford English Dictionary. From its inception, the OED was meant to be a vocabulary collection and a great inventory of archaisms and regionalisms—almost half the words on any given page are no longer used. In comparison, French lexicographers do their spring cleaning regularly so that the language doesn’t hold on to words it doesn’t need.
- The logic of French purism since Malherbe has been that each word should have a precise definition; no two words are perfectly synonymous. In Webster’s English dictionary the word tolerate has a definition. But “put up with” is defined merely as “tolerate,” without further explanation. No French dictionary would ever do that.
- if the English dictionary is like an inventory, the French dictionary is like a tool-box, with words divided up into categories, each with specific instructions about how to use it.
- Unlike the French, the English never felt it necessary to define their language (or their civil law, or even their constitution, for that matter).
- Of the world’s 127 Creoles, thirty-five are English-based and fourteen are French-based. There are more speakers of French-based Creoles than all other Creoles combined (including English), thanks mostly to Haiti,
- Grammatically, [in Haiti] gender disappeared and all words became neutral. The five articles usually follow the noun; la pomme (the apple) is pom-la. Verbs are not conjugated (with endings, as in French), but constructed, like most English tenses, with a pre-verb marker to indicate the tense.
- The French never did send enough colonists to the New World. In 1600 France’s population was four times larger than Britain’s. But in the New World, British settlers far outnumbered the French, right from the start. In 1620 there were already a thousand Virginians while French settlers numbered no more than a hundred in Quebec and Acadia combined.
- By 1700 New France had attracted only ten thousand colonists, compared to some 150,000 settlers spread out among the thirteen British colonies.
- one British subject in six lived in the colonies, compared to one Frenchman in three hundred.
- relatively few Huguenots traveled from France to New France. Richelieu forbade them to emigrate to the New World; he feared, with reason, that they would side with fellow Protestants when they got there and switch allegiance to the British Crown.
- French became the language of diplomacy in Europe less because of the power of France than because of the power of French. A class of career diplomats had begun to appear at the time. Many of them were also career soldiers, and soldiers, who usually joined the military at a young age, rarely knew Latin.
- French remained the sole language of high diplomacy in Europe until 1919.
- At the time of the Revolution, not even half of France’s population spoke French fluently, and another twenty-five percent had no understanding of it at all. By the Second World War virtually all of the French understood the language, and most of them spoke it well—although fifty percent of the population still spoke their regional language as a mother tongue.
- francophones—particularly, but not only, the French—are known for trying to speak as they write (formally, with rules), rather than write as they speak (informally, favouring effective communication, an approach widely associated with the writing of English speakers).
- Purism also gave francophones the idea that the language is its spelling, to the extent that any attempt to change spellings was seen as an attack on French.
- Neologisms are the great evil of purism, which dictates that each word should have one definition and that there should be only one word for any given definition.
- Purists now distinguish between what they call “new words” and neologisms. A new word describes a new reality, whereas a neologism is a new word that describes a reality for which there is already an existing word. However, this almost theological nuance still doesn’t solve the problems that result from the stifling influence of purism.
- It was not schooling that hastened the waning of regional languages in France so much as compulsory military service and, later, the development of mass media. Few patois had up-to-date lexicons or grammar. As the common language, French took on the job of naming modern concepts, which meant that the patois were relegated more and more to traditional spheres of activity and private life—the classic prelude to assimilation.
- In the fifteenth century, Argot was the name of a crime syndicate of brigands, thieves and killers who spoke together in jargon (a deformation of the Norman word garg, throat).
- The Republic was radically antireligious, but it encouraged missionary work abroad. The French kicked the Jesuits out of France twice, in 1880 and 1901, but during the same period subsidized them heavily to continue their work abroad, particularly in Lebanon.
- the Catholic clergy in Quebec actually forbade the reading and viewing of France’s most cutting-edge writers and cinema, and preached against city life, industry and even money in general, which were considered Protestant and therefore immoral.
- the difference between Parisian and Canadian French is no greater than that between British English and the English spoken in Texas. There are dialectal differences, but never so extreme as to make them mutually unintelligible.
- An English listener is always surprised to learn that poutine is a corruption of the English pudding, itself a deformation of the French word boudin (a type of blood sausage).
- Between 1830 and 1871 the French changed regimes no fewer than four times, each time violently.
- By 1914 there were only forty million French people—a small increase from the twenty-eight million at the time of the Revolution. The British population had tripled to forty-three million by this time and the German to sixty-seven million.
- German chancellor Otto von Bismarck is famous for having said that the great event of the nineteenth century was that the United States spoke English.
- 750 African languages are spoken in the thirty French-speaking countries in Africa.
- half of the poorest countries in the world are members of the Francophonie
- English-speaking countries make regular appeals for the use of English (and the elimination of other languages) in international organizations for the sake of “simplicity” or “efficiency.”
- In the European Union, French and English were still on a par in 1997 as the primary language for written documents, with about forty-two percent each. But by 2003 English had risen to seventy-two percent while French had fallen to eighteen percent.
- now the French are beginning to group consonants in their sentences, at least through pronunciation, by dropping the vowels between consonants, especially the E’s. Sentences like “Je me le demande” (“I am wondering”) are now pronounced j’m’le d’mand or je me l’demand.
- in France and throughout the francophonie, speakers are tending more and more to substitute ‘on’ (one) for ‘nous’ (we) and drop the ne in the negative in ne…pas.
- the almost total extinction of an entire verb tense, the passé simple (simple past). This is true throughout the francophonie. Nobody says je marchai (I walked). They say j’ai marché (literally “I have walked,” but understood as “I walked”).
- the imparfait (imperfect, equivalent of the past continuous) for marcher is je marchais; for courir it’s je courais; and for voir it’s je voyais. But in the passé simple, endings vary according to the verb group, making these verbs je marchai, je courus, je vis. In the plural it gets even more complicated: vous marchâtes, vous courrûtes, vous vîtes.
- another verb tense, the subjonctif imparfait (past subjunctive), has been completely assimilated to the present subjunctive, or even the regular present tense, because of its clumsiness.
- “C’est la galère” (“It’s a grind”—from the word galley, or slave ship) has produced the verb galérer (to struggle), which in turn produced the noun galérien (unemployed).
- Borrowings from English are, of course, another important source of new vocabulary in French. The phenomenon was quite minor until the 1920s, but since then, thousands of English words have entered French usage.
- people have even created faux English terms such as footing (walking), lifting (facelift) and pressing (drycleaning), words that have no relation to their real meaning in English (the way that déjà-vu and potpourri don’t mean the same thing in French as in English;
- ‘double entendre’ doesn’t even exist in French.
- insistence on the decadence of French is, more than anything, the expression of a class struggle over who gets to set the standard. Most purists’ rants about declining French are simply cleverly disguised criticisms of what they regard as bad taste or unacceptable styles of speech.
- Anti-English declarations usually have more to do with diplomatic strategy than language per se.
- the French word for computer, ordinateur...was a creation of IBM France, which in 1954 found it had a problem with the word computer in French. Said with a French accent, the syllables of computer sound like a combination of the two worst possible insults in the French language: con (cunt) and pute (whore).
- Many French speakers are attracted to the relaxed aspect of English and to the no-fuss way in which that language adapts to modernity.
- In the world of literary non-fiction and journalism, which we know well, French editorial practices often work against the goal of clarity. The French publish articles without indented paragraphs and books without indexes; they often write in long, windy sentences, to the point where great thinkers such as Michel Foucault are more readable in their English translation than in the French original.
- Of the 1.4 million Americans who study language in institutions of higher learning, 53 percent have turned to Spanish and 15 percent to French
- Two centuries ago French was regarded as the universal language of Europe, even though it was confined to elite circles, and even though seventy-five percent of the French people did not yet speak it.
- Only twenty-five percent of Africans are fully schooled, and this proportion is dropping every year,
- The fringes of the French-speaking world are equally interesting. More French is spoken in Israel than in Louisiana (in both percentage and number of speakers),
April 26, 2007
Out of all the books that have taken me *forever* to read recently, this one is my absolute favorite. By far. Sure, it gets a little draggy toward the end (when they go through every single way that French could ever apply to anything in the modern world ever. But so much more than that, it's a history of the development of French, the development of its influence, a culture, a worldview, outposts of thought; everything, really. Will you still enjoy it if you don't speak French? Absolutely; it's just that some of the examples will have less resonance for you.
The logic of French purism since Malherbe has been that each word should have a precise definition; no two words are perfectly synonymous. In Webster's English dictionary the word tolerate has a definition. But put up with is defined merely as "tolerate," without further explanation. No French dictionary would ever do that. A French dictionary of synonyms goes much further than an English thesaurus, which merely lists the synonyms. It will either give precise definitions for each equivalent, categorize the synonyms as literal, analogous or figurative or differentiate them in some other way.
My favorite fascinating new fact? The difference between Creole and Cajun cultures in Louisiana. Cajuns (and their culture) are descended from French-Canadian Acadiens who relocated into Louisiana. Creoles (and their culture) are descended from refugees of the Hatian civil war following that country's independence. (And I can't resist throwing in a fascinating fact that I already knew: creole (note the small "c") is a linguistic term referring to a "created" language. When you have a group of people working or living together who are all native speakers of different languages, they sometimes develop a pidgin. [Fact from the book: One of the earliest recorded examples of which was Lingua Franca, developed by merchants and traders around the Mediterranean.] Pidgins don't really have much in the way of grammar. However, as speakers of pidgins have kids and the language is perpetuated over the course of a generation or two, a grammar develops, and it becomes a creole, a completely independent language. No one grew up speaking Lingua Franca, so it never grew into a creole. [Another fact from the book: Linguists believe there are creoles currently developing in a couple of Francophone countries in Africa.])
The logic of French purism since Malherbe has been that each word should have a precise definition; no two words are perfectly synonymous. In Webster's English dictionary the word tolerate has a definition. But put up with is defined merely as "tolerate," without further explanation. No French dictionary would ever do that. A French dictionary of synonyms goes much further than an English thesaurus, which merely lists the synonyms. It will either give precise definitions for each equivalent, categorize the synonyms as literal, analogous or figurative or differentiate them in some other way.
My favorite fascinating new fact? The difference between Creole and Cajun cultures in Louisiana. Cajuns (and their culture) are descended from French-Canadian Acadiens who relocated into Louisiana. Creoles (and their culture) are descended from refugees of the Hatian civil war following that country's independence. (And I can't resist throwing in a fascinating fact that I already knew: creole (note the small "c") is a linguistic term referring to a "created" language. When you have a group of people working or living together who are all native speakers of different languages, they sometimes develop a pidgin. [Fact from the book: One of the earliest recorded examples of which was Lingua Franca, developed by merchants and traders around the Mediterranean.] Pidgins don't really have much in the way of grammar. However, as speakers of pidgins have kids and the language is perpetuated over the course of a generation or two, a grammar develops, and it becomes a creole, a completely independent language. No one grew up speaking Lingua Franca, so it never grew into a creole. [Another fact from the book: Linguists believe there are creoles currently developing in a couple of Francophone countries in Africa.])
August 13, 2008
I'm reading this oh-so-slowly; just a few pages each morning as I down my pre-gym coffee. And it will get set aside if I'm eager to finish another read, or yesterday's newspaper, or Lola simply demands my 5 am attention. This isn't to say that THe Story of French isn't engaging! I am really enjoying this long, slow encounter with the rise and development of the French language. In a previous life I was interested in pursuing psycho- and sociolinguistics and exploring how a society's mores, collective thoughts, mythologies, literature, politics and development were shaped by their common language and how language is shaped by its users. This books reawakens that curiosity and my continued love for the French language.
Goal is to finish the book by Christmas ;)
ETA: FINISHED! Excellent, fascinating treatise. This was NOT a book about France; it is rather an open-eyed, open-brain letter of admiration and love about the French language. It's down-to-earth style, carefully researched positions and wide-reaching examination show the power, the decline, the hopeful resurgence of the French language, its development throughout the many world regions where it is spoken and the socio-cultural politics of language. ANYONE interested in linguistics and in the importance of language in culture & politics, both historical and contemporary, should appreciate this savvy and intelligent work.
Goal is to finish the book by Christmas ;)
ETA: FINISHED! Excellent, fascinating treatise. This was NOT a book about France; it is rather an open-eyed, open-brain letter of admiration and love about the French language. It's down-to-earth style, carefully researched positions and wide-reaching examination show the power, the decline, the hopeful resurgence of the French language, its development throughout the many world regions where it is spoken and the socio-cultural politics of language. ANYONE interested in linguistics and in the importance of language in culture & politics, both historical and contemporary, should appreciate this savvy and intelligent work.
November 26, 2019
4.5 stars
A brilliant and accessible examination of the history and modern relevance of French language.
As the authors put it themselves at the end of the book, it "focused on the decisions and policies, creations and inventions, achievements and failures that have shaped the destiny of French, as opposed to strictly linguistics" (pp. 448).
I particularly loved the "Spread" and "Adaptation" sections of the book, which explored various topics such as the history and spread of French in North America (particularly Quebec and Acadia) and Haiti's French creole, the cultural diplomacy and educational spread of French in the 1800-1900s, the impact of French in former colonies such as Senegal and Algeria, the ineptitude of the l'Académie française at most times, and how French is being chosen by various individuals, institutes, and nations. There's also plenty of fun facts about the history and development of different words and phrases in French, which I found delightful.
Example: apparently the word for the animal, gofer (i.e. gopher in English) is a deformation of the word gaufre, meaning waffles. All because those who invented the word saw these animals digging holes in the ground, that to them resembled the holes in waffles. The more you know!
As a Canadian learning French as a second language, learning about the various perspectives of French language, culture, and role in society was valuable in understanding the language's mental space and the global francophonie. In particular, all of the sections focusing on Quebec were extremely insightful and put into context a lot of my own personal experiences living in Ottawa and Montreal. It also reinforced how exclusionary the discourse can be for French Canadians outside of Quebec on the national, or even provincial, stage.
I highly recommend to anyone interested in the history of French language/culture, the history of language in general, or those learning French. If you're hoping for a more linguistic-focused, academic text, this isn't the one for you (although I still think you would enjoy it).
A brilliant and accessible examination of the history and modern relevance of French language.
As the authors put it themselves at the end of the book, it "focused on the decisions and policies, creations and inventions, achievements and failures that have shaped the destiny of French, as opposed to strictly linguistics" (pp. 448).
I particularly loved the "Spread" and "Adaptation" sections of the book, which explored various topics such as the history and spread of French in North America (particularly Quebec and Acadia) and Haiti's French creole, the cultural diplomacy and educational spread of French in the 1800-1900s, the impact of French in former colonies such as Senegal and Algeria, the ineptitude of the l'Académie française at most times, and how French is being chosen by various individuals, institutes, and nations. There's also plenty of fun facts about the history and development of different words and phrases in French, which I found delightful.
Example: apparently the word for the animal, gofer (i.e. gopher in English) is a deformation of the word gaufre, meaning waffles. All because those who invented the word saw these animals digging holes in the ground, that to them resembled the holes in waffles. The more you know!
As a Canadian learning French as a second language, learning about the various perspectives of French language, culture, and role in society was valuable in understanding the language's mental space and the global francophonie. In particular, all of the sections focusing on Quebec were extremely insightful and put into context a lot of my own personal experiences living in Ottawa and Montreal. It also reinforced how exclusionary the discourse can be for French Canadians outside of Quebec on the national, or even provincial, stage.
I highly recommend to anyone interested in the history of French language/culture, the history of language in general, or those learning French. If you're hoping for a more linguistic-focused, academic text, this isn't the one for you (although I still think you would enjoy it).
February 26, 2008
Not as humorous as their previous book and the structure forced much repetition that could have - and should have - been eliminated with a different organizational format. Some interesting points but, by no means, a scholarly inquiry into the socio-cultural aspects of French and its prospects for the future. But it's interesting that the book in some ways ignores the truth of its own analysis, e.g., when considering why France is itself such a minor player in the international francophonie and Francophonie sphere (could the legacy of colonialism play a role here?). The authors repeatedly point out that this is not a book about English and anglophones, but admit that the stories are intertwined. In their quest to focus only on the unique aspects of the French story, they seem to ignore some truths about languages in general in the modern world, including English. They discuss the "agonizing" of some over the influence of slang adopted by youth as demoralizing French, but the same "agonizing" continues to occur regarding English. Perhaps much of what they attribute as the special situation of French is really about language more generally - spoken and written - in the age of globalization, the Internet, the decline in print media, etc. Nevertheless it's an interesting popular level read about French for those who, like me, continue to struggle to learn more than just junior high and high school level French.
September 19, 2007
I agree with several other reviewers that this book has some slow spots. But, all in all, I really enjoyed it for two reasons. First, most of the language history books I've read have been either based on English, or based on obscure disappearing languages. This was the first book I've read on another international language except for English. Second, the historical section at the beginning of the book did an excellent job of contextualizing all the random French history facts that I still remember from french civ classes.
The thing that bugged me the most was their obsession with English, and how often they talked about how French wasn't really losing to English internationally. I agree that the topic needed discussed, but really, one chapter would have sufficed...
The thing that bugged me the most was their obsession with English, and how often they talked about how French wasn't really losing to English internationally. I agree that the topic needed discussed, but really, one chapter would have sufficed...
August 13, 2008
In addition to being THE authoritative history of the evolution of the French language, this thoroughly-researched work identifies where French is today and what its future may be. The evidence presented identifies the largest impediments to the advancement of the French language: the attitude and misunderstandings of the people in the mother country – France. It is interesting to note that just as these observations could probably not be made by Frenchmen, the authors of this book are French Canadians.
A bit repetitious at times, but a great insight as to why the French language continues to expand its presence in the world despite the onslaught of English.
A bit repetitious at times, but a great insight as to why the French language continues to expand its presence in the world despite the onslaught of English.
July 19, 2014
Reallying enjoy it, about two thirds of the way through. I love the joint perspective of an anglophone from Quebec with that of a francophone from Ontario. It starts way back to before there could be said to be something called French, gives context for the creation of l'académie, la dictée nationale and other cultural phenomenons that make francophonie unique. It also explains the complicated relationship English and French have with each other and has given me a more appreciative way to look at it for what it is in 2014.
I've been warned the last third is a bit of a let down after the first 2/3 but it's been too good so far to not read it to the end.
I've been warned the last third is a bit of a let down after the first 2/3 but it's been too good so far to not read it to the end.
February 25, 2017
Very informative and in-depth! As someone who speaks french as a second language and has taken formal classes this book was great to reinforce and further inform what I already knew, but also taught me so much that I didn't. I highly recommend it if you are currently a student of french. I can't imagine how much richer my experience learning the language would have been if I had this book as a resource.
October 15, 2016
Not a bad book at all. Could hardly be classified as a linguistic book though, it is mostly sociocultural and a bit political research. It is strange that the reviews on Amazon are so negative; guess, the American readers did not like the thorough and quite eloquently expressed French vs. English analysis. But it was necessary for the picture.
January 10, 2024
Ambitious, fascinating, and well-researched but very accessible sociolinguistic (as opposed to purely linguistic) history of the French language, the authors asking throughout the book how did the language come into existence, how it did come to have a status far out of proportion to the number of native speakers, how did it become for decades the language for diplomacy, science, technology, and art, and how did it become so widespread and influential, even in countries that were never colonized by France. The authors looked at how despite some declines (or are they?), French still exits as the “world’s other global language” “in spite of the domination of English,” closing with a lengthy section describing the present state of French (2006) and its likely future, not only in France, but in the EU, Quebec, among French-Canadians outside of Quebec (definitely a different topic), among Cajuns, in Belgium, Switzerland, Haiti, and throughout the francophonie world, which includes such varied places as Algeria, Senegal, really all of west Africa, French Guiana, New Caledonia and French Polynesia, and even to me rather surprising places like Israel, Egypt, Romania, and Greece.
The authors do not assume the reader has any knowledge of French before reading the book and any passages in French are always translated and fairly brief, either quoting people relevant to the subject of the book, the story of French, or providing examples of the evolution of the language. The sections detailing the various words adopted in French at various points in its history were brief but fascinating, as well as words English adopted from French (to my surprise, the history of French has long been intertwined with the history of English and vice versa, at times English both a tremendous support to French but also a tremendous threat, with the love-hate relationship speakers of the two languages have for each other quite interesting to read).
The authors tackled many myths about French, such as looking to the degree French speakers actually are attached to the norme, the rules and standards of French, the degree to which the French Academy “controls” the French language (a body subject of many myths), a subject revisited again and again by the authors as they examine not only the French Academy but other organizations both in and outside of France that make rulings on French grammar and vocabulary, interesting passages on the Swiss, Belgian, and Quebec accents, and whether French in Quebec is “real” French. The authors looked at peculiar aspects of French, such as “of all the international languages, French is the only one of which the majority of native speakers are still in their country of origin” while at the same time, it is still the ninth language ranked in terms of speakers and ranks only behind English in numbers of countries that list it as an official language, well ahead of Arabic or Spanish.
The book doesn’t just cover the history of the language but also politics and culture, with in depth coverage of the Francophonie (“the organization of French-speaking countries that resembles the Commonwealth”), the importance of cultural diplomacy by the French and francophones relating to such things as cinema, literature, TV, and music, the many differences between how French speakers in France and franocphones outside France view issues of language protection and adherence to the norme, how it is not unusual that the francophonie world has organizations ruling on language and laws on language protection and protecting and promoting cultural diversity, but it is English and especially the United States that is unusual in not having any such language academy or ministry of culture, the economic impact of protecting cultural diversity (such as protecting French cinema from being utterly dominated by American productions), and the concept of plurilingualism (“the state of actively promoting the use of different languages in international institutions – ultimately, to the actual efforts individuals within those organizations make to practice more than one language”).
Lots of history is covered, such as how French as well know it came to be the French that would become the national language of France, the actual French spoken in the time of say Louis XIV versus what many French speakers think it was like (and why that is), how it came to be the language of diplomacy in Europe through the end of World War I, and how French was taught (or wasn’t taught) in overseas colonies from Canada to Africa and beyond to the history of the language in several nations besides France, most notably the United States, Canada, Haiti, Algeria, Switzerland, Belgium, and several countries in west Africa. Though it is not primarily a history book of either France or Quebec, the reader will get a good deal of history of those two places especially.
Closes with appendices, a selected bibliography, and a thorough index. The beginning of the book has two maps, one map of other languages spoken in France, the other a global map showing what other parts of the world speak French, are in the Francophonie or are observer states, or are French Overseas Territories, each indicated by different shadings.
The authors do not assume the reader has any knowledge of French before reading the book and any passages in French are always translated and fairly brief, either quoting people relevant to the subject of the book, the story of French, or providing examples of the evolution of the language. The sections detailing the various words adopted in French at various points in its history were brief but fascinating, as well as words English adopted from French (to my surprise, the history of French has long been intertwined with the history of English and vice versa, at times English both a tremendous support to French but also a tremendous threat, with the love-hate relationship speakers of the two languages have for each other quite interesting to read).
The authors tackled many myths about French, such as looking to the degree French speakers actually are attached to the norme, the rules and standards of French, the degree to which the French Academy “controls” the French language (a body subject of many myths), a subject revisited again and again by the authors as they examine not only the French Academy but other organizations both in and outside of France that make rulings on French grammar and vocabulary, interesting passages on the Swiss, Belgian, and Quebec accents, and whether French in Quebec is “real” French. The authors looked at peculiar aspects of French, such as “of all the international languages, French is the only one of which the majority of native speakers are still in their country of origin” while at the same time, it is still the ninth language ranked in terms of speakers and ranks only behind English in numbers of countries that list it as an official language, well ahead of Arabic or Spanish.
The book doesn’t just cover the history of the language but also politics and culture, with in depth coverage of the Francophonie (“the organization of French-speaking countries that resembles the Commonwealth”), the importance of cultural diplomacy by the French and francophones relating to such things as cinema, literature, TV, and music, the many differences between how French speakers in France and franocphones outside France view issues of language protection and adherence to the norme, how it is not unusual that the francophonie world has organizations ruling on language and laws on language protection and protecting and promoting cultural diversity, but it is English and especially the United States that is unusual in not having any such language academy or ministry of culture, the economic impact of protecting cultural diversity (such as protecting French cinema from being utterly dominated by American productions), and the concept of plurilingualism (“the state of actively promoting the use of different languages in international institutions – ultimately, to the actual efforts individuals within those organizations make to practice more than one language”).
Lots of history is covered, such as how French as well know it came to be the French that would become the national language of France, the actual French spoken in the time of say Louis XIV versus what many French speakers think it was like (and why that is), how it came to be the language of diplomacy in Europe through the end of World War I, and how French was taught (or wasn’t taught) in overseas colonies from Canada to Africa and beyond to the history of the language in several nations besides France, most notably the United States, Canada, Haiti, Algeria, Switzerland, Belgium, and several countries in west Africa. Though it is not primarily a history book of either France or Quebec, the reader will get a good deal of history of those two places especially.
Closes with appendices, a selected bibliography, and a thorough index. The beginning of the book has two maps, one map of other languages spoken in France, the other a global map showing what other parts of the world speak French, are in the Francophonie or are observer states, or are French Overseas Territories, each indicated by different shadings.
January 26, 2024
3.5
I have mixed feelings about this book. On one hand, I did generally enjoy what the book had to say about the history of the French language, and I feel more motivated to get myself back into the swing of things with French more than ever.
That being said, I did also catch a few factual errors throughout the book, which leaves me wondering just how many more I missed simply because I'm not knowledgeable about those areas. It leaves me feeling uneasy, not being able to know which facts they got wrong and which they got right. I'll have to sit on this book a bit longer before I determine whether I want to keep it on my shelves.
I have mixed feelings about this book. On one hand, I did generally enjoy what the book had to say about the history of the French language, and I feel more motivated to get myself back into the swing of things with French more than ever.
That being said, I did also catch a few factual errors throughout the book, which leaves me wondering just how many more I missed simply because I'm not knowledgeable about those areas. It leaves me feeling uneasy, not being able to know which facts they got wrong and which they got right. I'll have to sit on this book a bit longer before I determine whether I want to keep it on my shelves.
June 15, 2024
Le livre est intéressant et pose les bases d’une réflexion sur l’avenir du français par l’observation de ce qui a fonctionné et n’a pas fonctionné historiquement. Toutefois, on y retrouve quelques raccourcis intellectuels et inexactitudes. Il faut tout de même garder en tête que le livre a maintenant 18 ans. De nouvelles études sur l’histoire de la langue française ont depuis été écrites et ont corrigé ces inexactitudes.
Sommairement, j’ai bien aimé, mais le livre aurait gagné à être plus concis et moins répétitif.
Sommairement, j’ai bien aimé, mais le livre aurait gagné à être plus concis et moins répétitif.
Read
February 14, 2019I was hoping this book would have more history of the language. But it's mostly a survey of where and how French is spoken today. Its core question is whether and how French can survive in a world increasingly dominated by globalized English.
November 15, 2025
fuckin a this was good...
vive le français !
vive le français !
March 31, 2010
This was an interesting exploration of the development of French through a historical and linguistic lens, a very interesting anecdote-filled explanation of how French influenced other languages (mainly Enlgish), and a not-so-interesting set of essays on French's continued effect on the world. The authors know how to bundle their history well, so European history in the context of the development of French from early Frankish, Latin, and other local dialects was cool to know. King Francois beat some Italians in battle in the middle ages and brought back some Italian cooks (along with a family member) and French cooking got its start.
The most interesting part to an American reader is their take on the influence French had on English and North American history. Apparently the French explorers were very ambitious in the early 1600s - Champlain sent a guy named Etienne Brule to go live with the Algonquins to learn their language for a summer. He came back as a bush man, dressed as a native, and served as a translator for a bit. He also explored a lot - he was the first European to see Niagara Falls. He adopted the ways of Native Americans, which the Europeans disapproved. Tragically, he was murdered by his adopted tribe, who then ate him - no one recorded the reason.
Other "did you know"s: sled dog racers "Mush" is from a mongrelized "Marchez!" ("Walk!" or "Go!"); "tennis" is from early French's "tenetz" ("take this"); Cajuns are Northern Louisianans who fled or were deported from Acadia - Nothern Canada - when the British tried to crush the French speakers of Canada in the 1700s; Dixie is called Dixie because the ten dollar bill used in Louisiana was printed in French - and the French word for "ten" is "dix."
Unfortunately the book went on a little long for my interests and I skimmed the last couple chapters. Unless you're very interested in the Quebecois nationalism movement or specific utilizations of modern French, the last third of the book can drag. I did find it funny that although the French Academy tries so hard to preserve an idealized form of French so stridently, everyday French speakers are simplifying the language by eliminating the use of the passe simple and ensuring that all new French verbs follow the -er form and not the more convoluted -ir or -re forms. Normal people want things to be easy, not complicatedly pristine or beautiful. Even the French.
The most interesting part to an American reader is their take on the influence French had on English and North American history. Apparently the French explorers were very ambitious in the early 1600s - Champlain sent a guy named Etienne Brule to go live with the Algonquins to learn their language for a summer. He came back as a bush man, dressed as a native, and served as a translator for a bit. He also explored a lot - he was the first European to see Niagara Falls. He adopted the ways of Native Americans, which the Europeans disapproved. Tragically, he was murdered by his adopted tribe, who then ate him - no one recorded the reason.
Other "did you know"s: sled dog racers "Mush" is from a mongrelized "Marchez!" ("Walk!" or "Go!"); "tennis" is from early French's "tenetz" ("take this"); Cajuns are Northern Louisianans who fled or were deported from Acadia - Nothern Canada - when the British tried to crush the French speakers of Canada in the 1700s; Dixie is called Dixie because the ten dollar bill used in Louisiana was printed in French - and the French word for "ten" is "dix."
Unfortunately the book went on a little long for my interests and I skimmed the last couple chapters. Unless you're very interested in the Quebecois nationalism movement or specific utilizations of modern French, the last third of the book can drag. I did find it funny that although the French Academy tries so hard to preserve an idealized form of French so stridently, everyday French speakers are simplifying the language by eliminating the use of the passe simple and ensuring that all new French verbs follow the -er form and not the more convoluted -ir or -re forms. Normal people want things to be easy, not complicatedly pristine or beautiful. Even the French.
November 1, 2020
I had been meaning to read this book for about a decade...and finally decided to bite the bullet. I am relieved I have completed it, at the same time that I am glad I persisted. It is one of those valuable books that surprises because it describes the intersection of language and life in myriads of contexts. French language myths are exposed in several chapters, and current evolution in street French is demonstrated in another fascinating chapter.
Reading the book for the history alone is worth the several chapters devoted to it. For example, I found it remarkable that at the time of the French Revolution the vast majority of people living in France were not fluent in French. A multi-year survey commissioned at the time revealed that
"[o]f a population of twenty-eight million, only three million French citizens spoke French well, and even fewer wrote it. Another six million could carry on a conversation, and at least six million didn't speak French at all. The thirteen million others probably has a shaky understanding of French at best. ...no fewer than thirty dialects [were] being spoken across France....the young Republican general Napoleon who learned French only when he was fifteen and spoke it with a Corsican accent all his life, was typically French."
Depending on one's interest in dominant nation/ colonial history, or Québécois, or the intersection of language and politics, or just the French language itself--to list a few subjects covered-- this book rewards interest and stimulates curiosity. Published in 2006.
Reading the book for the history alone is worth the several chapters devoted to it. For example, I found it remarkable that at the time of the French Revolution the vast majority of people living in France were not fluent in French. A multi-year survey commissioned at the time revealed that
"[o]f a population of twenty-eight million, only three million French citizens spoke French well, and even fewer wrote it. Another six million could carry on a conversation, and at least six million didn't speak French at all. The thirteen million others probably has a shaky understanding of French at best. ...no fewer than thirty dialects [were] being spoken across France....the young Republican general Napoleon who learned French only when he was fifteen and spoke it with a Corsican accent all his life, was typically French."
Depending on one's interest in dominant nation/ colonial history, or Québécois, or the intersection of language and politics, or just the French language itself--to list a few subjects covered-- this book rewards interest and stimulates curiosity. Published in 2006.
January 25, 2021
Overall, "The Story of French" is an interesting, but surface-level read about the history of the French language and culture that compromises a significant amount of nuance, detail, and accuracy for the sake of condensing an overview of the history, culture, vocabulary, grammar, and literature (among many other things) of French into a part- travel, part- history, part- contemporary-society book. Attempting to cover a wide range of cultures, from Quebec and Acadia to West Africa, from French Indochina to Israel, and of course focusing on France, it provides a huge array of information without ever going into finer detail.
What it does accomplish is give a mostly-chronological, mostly-organized, and mostly-engaging story, but there are many moments where I was left wondering how the chapter or section that I just read fit into the rest of the storyline, and very rarely was that question answered. The history of French is laid out in the first half of the book, while the second half addresses different cultures from around the world that have adopted the language as their own, and what the current trends are in the French language. I would recommend this if you are not a native French-speaker, as the audience of this books seems to be directed at those who want to learn French, but have not yet begun. For those who understand the language, I suspect you'll have already been exposed to most of the historical or cultural "facts" and you won't likely absorb much else.
November 8, 2010
I don't speak French at all, but my wife does, and I picked it up thinking this would be a good 'put me to sleep' book. Boy, was I wrong: this thing keeps me up late. I read once that in order to understand the history of a people, you must learn the history of their language. This is the perfect book for someone who's curious about European history/languages, but doesn't want to be bothered with actually learning another language.
Okay, now I can say that the first third of the book is the most interesting, particularly for one who doesn't really care about the stagnation and hypocrisy of language 'societies'. It was great to learn of French as a living, evolving process, which is, to this day, forming; not sprung fully formed from the forehead of Zeus like we've been led to believe. It was also interesting to read of the way French speakers 'export' the language across the globe, essentially creating markets for it.
Okay, now I can say that the first third of the book is the most interesting, particularly for one who doesn't really care about the stagnation and hypocrisy of language 'societies'. It was great to learn of French as a living, evolving process, which is, to this day, forming; not sprung fully formed from the forehead of Zeus like we've been led to believe. It was also interesting to read of the way French speakers 'export' the language across the globe, essentially creating markets for it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 9, 2011
Francophile that I am (perhaps francophone, according to the authors' definition), I found this book about the French language fascinating from beginning to end. Nadeau and Barlow are comprehensive and thorough to the point of risking redundancy in their investigation of the history (past, present & future), structure (linguistics), culture, geopolitics, economics etc. of French. The authors' perspective is that of bilingual/ bicultural Canadians from Montreal, each having learned the other's mother tongue. Apparently, they alternate English and French at home, switching up at the beginning of each week. Their insider/ outsider stance as both native speaker and second language learner, coming from a French-speaking culture which is not that of France, causes them, I think, to investigate the language in a way that is fresh and exciting. This will become a "go to" book on my reference bookshelf I'm sure.
January 25, 2009
I loved the first half or so of this book - I find the evolution of languages to be fascinating, and Nadeau and Barlow do a very nice job of condensing hundreds of years of history into a readable narrative.
Unfortunately, the second half of this book didn't quite live up to the first half. At least for me. It was far drier, and it seemed that about every other page, the authors were trying to remind the reader that French is still an important language.
But overall, a fun pop history book, particularly if you parles fracais.
Unfortunately, the second half of this book didn't quite live up to the first half. At least for me. It was far drier, and it seemed that about every other page, the authors were trying to remind the reader that French is still an important language.
But overall, a fun pop history book, particularly if you parles fracais.
September 7, 2016
A charming idea, the story of French. It offers scores of anecdotes and repeated opportunities to grow one's French vocabulary. It is a trove of "did you knows?": on Indochine, Acadians, the French Republics, ancien regime, Alliance francais, Cajuns and Cadiens.
But reading it felt like a chore.
One issue: Lesotho is inaccurately described as a good example of democracy in Africa. It's a constitutional monarchy (minus one point) where there is little by, of and for the people (minus another point).
But reading it felt like a chore.
One issue: Lesotho is inaccurately described as a good example of democracy in Africa. It's a constitutional monarchy (minus one point) where there is little by, of and for the people (minus another point).
June 14, 2018
The first three parts of the book were pretty interesting, even for someone like me who speaks no French. The fourth part was a little boring and I mostly skimmed it. I felt like throughout the emphasis disproportionately leaned toward France and Quebec. I would have liked to have seen more about the language in colonies/former colonies. Southeast Asia was all but overlooked with the exception of a few cursory mentions. Maybe that's because they don't really use French there now, but that's still part of the story of the language and worth exploring.
May 22, 2018
Interesting read about the history and influence of French and how it competes with English in the modern day.
If you have any interest in language or French, this is probably right up your alley.
If you have any interest in language or French, this is probably right up your alley.
March 13, 2019
I wanted to give this book 5 stars, but too much of the middle sections were drowning in boring statistics. The beginning was fantastic and I loved every word of it. I would recommend it to students and teachers of French alike. Lots of great answers to some of the most frequently asked things about French and why it’s so weird. I should add that part of why the first part of this book was so interesting for me is b/c I had read Letter Perfect by David Sacks before reading this one. It talks about the alphabet and how it came to be, and some of the info in that book reinforced what I read in this one.
December 21, 2025
Finally finished this book after nearly five years; nothing to do with the book being uninteresting, but because I needed to find a way to make it an audiobook (I used Speechify). A bit dated, but still very good look at how French has continued to evolve outside of France. The authors, being Canadian, bring a different perspective than the ones I'd expect from French, American, or British authors. The role of the francophonie and Quebec language policies are interesting and important ones to keep in mind; it is the constant threat of Anglicization that has made Quebec a leader in cultural protection and language policies.
September 30, 2019
Quite a comprehensive history of French language: the origins, the influence of other languages, the geopolitics stuff changing French. Learned a lot about French and other francophone countries history. However, I was looking for something from the linguistic point of view rather than historical. Such as why irregular verbs work like they do or how the system of prepositions has been developed. Such topics are covered on a very high level here. Nevertheless, for those who are interested in french history, this book is a good choice
October 29, 2022
Fascinating investigation into the origins and evolution of the French language. Benoît moves outside of just Quebec, his homeland, and France, and investigates how the language has evolved in both the countries typically associated with the francophonie or part of the formal Francophone, and those such as Israel which have many French speakers.
It is a work of history, politics, and above all a book of love for a language the author clearly cares deeply about. The book served as a great introduction to my time in France as I have begun studying the French language.
It is a work of history, politics, and above all a book of love for a language the author clearly cares deeply about. The book served as a great introduction to my time in France as I have begun studying the French language.
January 18, 2010
I got this book from my favorite thrift store, thinking I'd be able to read it soon, but I didn't start doing so until I thought I could learn a thing or two from its espousal on making French one of the leading international languages (based on it's brief review on its back cover) even in these times when Mandarin is actually spoken by more people than English (considered by most as the international language of business). I mean, I'm not exactly reading nor studying French at all---it does not appeal to me at all personally (except upon remembering that one of my favorite modern day saints, St. Therese of the Child Jesus spoke French when she was still with us). I'd rather become competent in Spanish, or Mandarin anytime soon even before I get to learn my first lessons in French (though I know some good friends who speak French, plus I've seen many great French films). I have to admit the image of the French can be mesmerizing, given the ads & the images that we see all around us about things of beauty, style, and design. In comparison, the English, of which I speak, read & write since I was small (as in practically native for all intents & purposes), looked eccentric and weird to me given their apparent emphasis on things of royalty and class differences---but that's already going too far for our purposes here. This review will then be focused on what mainly got into my mind while perusing seriously the contents of this book while I went about in my daily city trips here in NYC.
What struck me really about this book is its narrative about tendencies of those who are in positions of power, or the powers that be, to use language in shaping the minds and controlling the behaviors of people who don't fit in their ideas of what's good and bad. It's all the same story all over again, just like in my experiences with my ability to use English, in which we who have learned our English not really in UK, in Ireland, or in the US are easily thought or dismissed by others as not really learned in real English at all (unless proven by having passed language proficiency exams that very well bring money into their pockets!)---well, this is the same line story in this particular book. The authors have described their terrible experiences of being discriminated because they speak and possess a tone that has been decided by the powers-that-be as not "real French."
Reading through this book, I particularly remember how the couple Nadeau (Jean-Benoit) and Barlow (Julie) narrated that the French they know and have learned is considered below par---there were even periods before when French language teachers were thought to be of poor competency when they come from Quebec, or in Montreal, Canada---as the French used here sound archaic, and have been kept away from latest developments in other areas where French is officially used (including, of course, France). Even recently, I met two or more people who have told me about how aghast they were at listening to Canadian brand of French---they thought of it as "provincial."
I can very well relate to the experience. Applying the ideas to what we non-US or non-UK, or non-Australian, or non-New Zealand, or non-Irish, or non-Canadian natives experience when people get surprised at finding out that we have learned our brand of English in our respective countries (in my particular case, I was exposed to English in the Philippines, which country was a colony of the US from 1898 to 1945, hence the exposure to the English language, being part of the heritage, no matter how badly colonial that could be to others). Of course, for all intents and purposes, I speak with an accent in English, and I'm proud of it---it's my heritage. It doesn't in any way make my English bad in any form from the regular English used in the UK, the US, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Ireland. My English is as native as it can be, having grown up with it---in fact, I even used English when my late Father and I would have serious arguments on certain issues as he could explain himself better in English than in Ilocano (his first language, being a major language spoken in northern part of Luzon, the Philippine archipelago's largest island) or Tagalog (the basis of the Philippine national language) to me who remembers being exposed to English most strongly from TV's Sesame Street.
This book is a great example of work that advocates a more international, more expansive brand of multi-lingualism, or the use of several major languages all the same time, and not at the dire expense of one language thought to be not international enough these days (in this case, French, which used to be considered the "international language" at least a hundred years ago). It's refreshing and assuring to get myself reminded that my set of experiences on the languages I know and use have similarities with the authors' experiences --these are just familiar to those who grew up in environments where several languages are used and spoken simultaneously. In this case, I'm happy to be assured that the authors have a fairly clear idea of the experiences of people who speak/read/write/listen/pray in two or more languages daily - & that this is actually an advantage, a great strength, rather than thought to be a weakness or even at worst as copy-cats by certain people who are aghast at our awesome language abilities.
What struck me really about this book is its narrative about tendencies of those who are in positions of power, or the powers that be, to use language in shaping the minds and controlling the behaviors of people who don't fit in their ideas of what's good and bad. It's all the same story all over again, just like in my experiences with my ability to use English, in which we who have learned our English not really in UK, in Ireland, or in the US are easily thought or dismissed by others as not really learned in real English at all (unless proven by having passed language proficiency exams that very well bring money into their pockets!)---well, this is the same line story in this particular book. The authors have described their terrible experiences of being discriminated because they speak and possess a tone that has been decided by the powers-that-be as not "real French."
Reading through this book, I particularly remember how the couple Nadeau (Jean-Benoit) and Barlow (Julie) narrated that the French they know and have learned is considered below par---there were even periods before when French language teachers were thought to be of poor competency when they come from Quebec, or in Montreal, Canada---as the French used here sound archaic, and have been kept away from latest developments in other areas where French is officially used (including, of course, France). Even recently, I met two or more people who have told me about how aghast they were at listening to Canadian brand of French---they thought of it as "provincial."
I can very well relate to the experience. Applying the ideas to what we non-US or non-UK, or non-Australian, or non-New Zealand, or non-Irish, or non-Canadian natives experience when people get surprised at finding out that we have learned our brand of English in our respective countries (in my particular case, I was exposed to English in the Philippines, which country was a colony of the US from 1898 to 1945, hence the exposure to the English language, being part of the heritage, no matter how badly colonial that could be to others). Of course, for all intents and purposes, I speak with an accent in English, and I'm proud of it---it's my heritage. It doesn't in any way make my English bad in any form from the regular English used in the UK, the US, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Ireland. My English is as native as it can be, having grown up with it---in fact, I even used English when my late Father and I would have serious arguments on certain issues as he could explain himself better in English than in Ilocano (his first language, being a major language spoken in northern part of Luzon, the Philippine archipelago's largest island) or Tagalog (the basis of the Philippine national language) to me who remembers being exposed to English most strongly from TV's Sesame Street.
This book is a great example of work that advocates a more international, more expansive brand of multi-lingualism, or the use of several major languages all the same time, and not at the dire expense of one language thought to be not international enough these days (in this case, French, which used to be considered the "international language" at least a hundred years ago). It's refreshing and assuring to get myself reminded that my set of experiences on the languages I know and use have similarities with the authors' experiences --these are just familiar to those who grew up in environments where several languages are used and spoken simultaneously. In this case, I'm happy to be assured that the authors have a fairly clear idea of the experiences of people who speak/read/write/listen/pray in two or more languages daily - & that this is actually an advantage, a great strength, rather than thought to be a weakness or even at worst as copy-cats by certain people who are aghast at our awesome language abilities.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 155 reviews