What's in a word? A lot, that's what, be it in English or French

We are used to seeing new words and expressions crop up in English, and those with an image to protect or project - governments, businesses and the press are a few examples - can be very inventive indeed when it comes to dressing a wolf in sheep's clothing, or, come to think of it, dressing a sheep in wolf's clothing.

One well-known example  is 'collateral damage', a military term which tries - and fails of course - to sanitise and render anodyne the brutal reality of 'civilian casualties'. Another is the business world's 'reorganisation', or its alternative, 'restructuring', to describe the cruel act of throwing thousands of people out of a job and into unemployment queues. Those two examples are, of course, indicative of a desire to hide bad news, but others can have the opposite intention - that of exacerbating the truth.

This is a favourite press tactic which is often used by journalists who wish to render their articles more sensationalist or slanted (or both). That's why newspapers which offer partisan opinion articles on a given conflict use either 'terrorist' or 'resistant/rebel' to describe people who kill other people, depending which side of the fence they are on. Then there's 'genocide', or 'genocidal act'. This one takes cynical advantage of the fact that there is no single definition of it, and that is why it is slowly being watered down from its original connotation for most people, which is the deaths of hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people in an attempt to eradicate a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The result is that I have seen it used recently to describe the deaths of as few as 2 people, particularly when it comes to conflicts in the Middle East and on the African continent. 'War crimes' and 'crimes against humanity' have also become popular to describe the same phenomenon, but when few victims are involved, I would venture to say that 'unlawful killing of prisoners or civilians' is more accurate. After all, we can't realistically take every soldier/guerilla fighter who kills two people to the International Criminal Court - the international court which deals with these and similar crimes - to be tried, however awful their actions may be. 

Not that the Anglophone world is alone in deploying the fine art of inventing touchy-feely ways to describe negative images of course. The French are no novices at this game either, and just like Anglophones, they know how to sugar the pill. Better-known examples include 'zones sensibles' - 'sensitive zones/areas' - a would-be benign way of describing 'ghettos', which, in France, is a highly negative and crime-inferencing expression uniquely reserved for descriptions of similarly disadvantaged areas of cities not in France, but in other countries, and most notably America. Then there's my all-time favourite, 'Les Evénements' - 'The Events' - to describe what the rest of the world has always called 'the Algerian War'. That said, the latter term is finally becoming acceptable here, but hey, a war described as an 'event'? The tradition continues today, and that's why Hollande and his government have literally banned the use of 'austerity measures' to describe what in reality are spending cuts, higher taxes and other belt-tightening fiscal measures. The buzzwords now are 'fair redistribution', 'economic rationalisation', 'economic mesures' and 'a national effort'.

I mention all this because coincidence has it that I have read a few news stories this week in the French press which all discuss the the meanings and implications of terms used to describe phenomenon or events. But although I imagine that most people would agree that the examples I cited above are no more than overtly biased attempts to give unpalatable hard facts a soft landing, those I have found this week are more likely to provoke diverse opinions.

The first one concerns the efforts of French Socialist députée Sandrine Mazetier, who would like to see the French term 'école maternelle' replaced by an alternative because, she argues, the word 'maternal' intrinsically implies that kindergardens, pre-schools and nursery schools, (according to local use in different Anglophone countries) are uniquely the affair of mothers and the female sex and, as such, is sexist. She suggests alternatives such as 'small child schools' or 'first/primary schools', which she says are more gender-inclusive. Does she have a point? Or, as her critics are asking, "doesn't the government have anything better to do in times of a financial crisis than to play around with semantics?" Hmmm.....

Next up are a couple of articles which address expressions which are being hotly contested during the ongoing debate on gay marriage, and the first one is very interesting. Those who oppose gay marriage say that the word 'marriage' can only be applied to a marriage between a man and a woman, and that another term should be found to define same-sex unions. Yet at the same time proponents of 'gay marriage' also disagree with that term on the grounds that it differenciates between 'marriage' and 'gay marriage', so they think that the terms 'gay' or 'homosexual' marriage should be banned, and that 'marriage' alone is more in line with the idea of equal rights and considerations. Is one side or the other being too pernickety for pernickety's sake? If so, which one? What new term should be used instead?

Another bone of contention in the gay marriage debate is that of the terminology 'parent 1 and parent 2'. Opponents say that these terms reduce people to numbers and "why not have 'parents 3 and 4' too while we're about it, to include the lover and the bigamist's partner?" Notwithstanding, the French national rail company SNCF has apparently decided that the gay marriage bill will be voted into law, so it has already taken steps to replace the terms 'mother' and 'father' in the documents it asks employees to fill in which include marital and personal status with 'parent 1' and 'parent 2'. The government denies that either term will be used once the law comes into force and says that the two categories of  'husband' and 'wife' will be replaced by the more inclusive 'husband and wife', and that 'mother' and 'father' will become the equally egalitarian 'parents'. Phew! I'm getting dizzy with all these alternatives! Is all this a storm in a terminological PC teacup or does the future of humanity depend upon making the right choice?

Lastly - and perhaps most importantly - François Hollande's election promise to eliminate the word 'race' from Article 1 of the French Constitution is to be put to parliament before this summer. But this is not an example of changing nomenclature to hide realities, on the contrary. It's about purely and simply removing a term, and the phenomenon it defines, from use with a strikethrough stroke of a pen and without replacing it. And it is likely to cause a real ruckus because the consequences of eliminating the word 'race' from the Constitution could have far-reaching implications for freedom of information in France. Paragraph 1 of the French Constitution states that;

'France is an indivisible, laïque [i.e. secular], democratic and social Republic. It guarantees equality before the law of all citizens without distinctions of origin, race or religion. It respects all beliefs. Its [organisational structure] is decentralised.'

Hollande explained his reasoning at the time by saying that "there is no place in the Republic for [the notion of] race."

Unlike almost every other modern democracy, France has always been notoriously loath to publish official statistics on racial discrimination (and indeed societal statistics in general) because it fears that doing so would be tantamount to officially acknowledging the widespread existence in France of racial discrimination in areas such as housing, employment, political representation, the jail population, crime statistics and the holding of high office for all to see. And it has systematically used Article 1 to justify this refusal.

Removing the word 'race' from Article 1 would thus theoretically remove any obstacle to the compiling of statistics relative to racial discrimination. But is that Hollande's objective? Or is he merely trying to reinforce France's eternal and cynical refrain that 'there is no racial discrimination in France because we are French first and foremost and our origins are not taken into account'? This is not an easy call....

Anyway, those are my 'what's in a wordical' musings of the day and any opinions you may have on them would be welcome.

Do you know your Tu from your Vous? Here’s a guide

You? Or you?

All native English-speakers who also speak reasonably good French and live in France have had to learn the subtle art of ‘tutoiement’ and ‘vouvoiement’ to some extent in order to function socially and professionally.  The only problem with learning it however is that there is no direct equivalent in modern English to compare it to and there is no definitive ‘user manual’ for it either. You’re more or less on your own because there’s a fair amount of subjectivity involved.

This lack of formal rules means that it might be best to explain things in terms of how the French use it in their lives, and what follows is a guide to some of the practices and attitudes you should know about, as well as some of the pitfalls to avoid. Firstly though, what is this phenomenon and how is it defined?

Called the ‘T-V distinction’ in sociolinguistics, it is the contrast in some languages, such as French, between the singular and plural second-person pronouns. This contrast doesn’t exist in English – where ‘you’ is used in both cases - but in French ‘tu’ is the singular and ‘vous’ is the plural. This difference means that depending on who they are used to address and in which circumstances, they can convey respect, courtesy, keeping one’s distance, politeness, familiarity, or insult. That’s why you have to be careful which one you use. (A historical note: there used to be an equivalent in older versions of English – ‘thou/thee’ for the singular and ‘you’ for the plural.)

‘Tu (toi, te)’ is the second person familiar pronoun in French, and ‘vous’ is the second person plural familiar pronoun, but ‘vous’ is also used as the more respectful form of the second person singular, thus replacing ‘tu’, and that’s where things start to get difficult. Which to use?

There is one custom that all of French society agrees on, so let’s begin with that. ‘Vous’ is what you use to address any stranger respectfully and politely in public, whatever their social status or background. That means everyone from shop assistants to waiters to bank staff and local government workers, and it also means literally anybody in the street, for example the person you ask for directions or the person you are apologising to for accidentally bumping into them while boarding a bus. There are no exceptions, and the use of ‘tu’ in these circumstances is considered to be extremely impolite.

That was the easy bit, but there are also many instances when either one or the other is usually used, and this is where things can become more delicate.

Friends and family almost always use the familiar ‘tu’ to each other and many work colleagues do likewise, whatever their position in the company. This is often the case in small companies and places like bars, restaurants and shops, although in some other companies colleagues at the same hierarchical level use ‘tu’ with each other but when it comes to senior management it’s a mutual ‘vous.’ It is rare these days for everyone to vouvoyer at work. When meeting people for the first time outside of a social setting, it is best to use ‘vous’ at first, even though the circumstances in which you meet may be relaxed, such as in a restaurant, where you strike up a conversation with people on the adjoining table. Note also that some older people still use ‘vous’ between themselves even though they are friends as that’s how things were many years ago.

That said, if you are introduced to the friend of a friend and in an informal setting, ‘tu’ is generally used automatically from the start. Children and teenagers universally use ‘tu’ to address each other. Younger people tutoie more and more easily and so do people such as artists and musicians, and in places such as clubs and associations.

Next, there are very few cases indeed in which one person would use ‘vous’ and the other would use ‘tu.’ It’s almost always a case of both people using one or the other, but there are a few exceptions. Schoolchildren in many schools have to use ‘vous’ when speaking to teachers whereas teachers may use ‘tu’ to them. A person who is much older than their interlocutor may ‘tutoyer’ whereas the younger one uses ‘vous.’ I am 58 and although I would not allow anyone to tutoie me without at least a tacit agreement – in which case we both use ‘tu’ - I do make an exception for people in, say, their 80’s, as long as they are talking to me in an agreeable manner. After all – and contrary to some sections of popular opinion – even the old have to earn respect.

Concerning children, they used to have to use ‘vous’ from the start to everyone, but these days they use the familiar ’tu’ to address all adults until they are old enough to know why a choice has to be made. There are no hard and fast rules here but I would remind any child of over 10 years old who I don’t know that he or she is being impolite by using ‘tu’ to me. Adults tend to tutoie children even older than 10 and expect to be answered with ‘vous’, although it would be impolite to use ‘tu’ when they get to say, 15, unless you know them.

Having met people and used ‘vous’ with them for a while, the next and very important question is ‘when do you both decide that you get on well enough or are on familiar enough terms that ‘vous’ is beginning to seem too formal and that ‘tu’ would be better?’ The rule here unfortunately is that there is no rule, and how they are used is considered to be a reflection of how polite people are and how well they relate to people.

I am someone who prefers to use ‘tu’ as soon as possible in as many circumstances as possible, and that’s only natural given that I like to be on informal terms with people. Other people on the other hand prefer to keep their distance a little by using ‘vous.’ If someone asks you if you may both use ‘tu’, say yes if possible (it’s a sign of wanting to be friends) but only if you want that to happen. You may also decide to initiate the change, but try and be sure that you are not asking prematurely and that the other person would agree before doing so because a refusal can be embarrassing.

However, if for example you are a young woman who works in an office where they normally use ‘vous’ and a manager you think is trying to be overly-familiar with you for all the wrong reasons wants to use ‘tu’ in order to become more bold in his amourous actions, refuse. Refuse politely, but refuse. And he must respect your decision.

A few must-nevers-but-weres and other pitfalls I have seen people fall into? There’s the young man I recall who used ‘tu’ to his girlfriend’s mother the first time he met her. Talk about giving a bad impression. Then there was the arrogant client who used ‘tu’ to a restaurant waiter as was routinely the case 100 years ago only for the waiter to tutoie him in return. The client complained, but the manager, to his credit, defended the waiter. And pity the poor young man who used ‘tu’ during a job interview. I know the interviewer and, needless to say, he did not hire the person concerned. At the opposite end of the scale, I know a lady who uses ‘vous’ to all her work colleagues in a company that uses ‘tu.’ She is reviled as a snob. Finally, one of my many errors when I was learning ‘tu’ and ‘vous’ was to tutoie a lady of over 70, thinking that her tutoiement of me was meant as a sign that she wanted to be informal. She did, but she still wanted to retain the old ‘tu’-‘vous’ tandem and I was put squarely back in my place. Very embarrassing.

It’s impossible to list all the scenarios, and people have different attitudes towards ‘tu’ and ‘vous’, which is why if my English-speaking French friends were to read this, some would agree with my descriptions whereas others wouldn’t. And the same goes for French-speaking English natives.

But nevertheless, don’t forget that although people will pardon your errors if your French is not that brilliant, from the moment you speak good French, you are supposed to be able to have the ability to sense when to use ‘tu’ and when to use ‘vous.’ Use them in a negligent manner and you could end up with the reputation of being vaguely uncouth, or worse, and used wisely, they are a means of demonstrating that you understand French people, their culture and their customs, and that you have good social skills.