As suggested by Lodge, this type of process can be observed in la langue d’Oïl dialects in northern France which are engaging in a gradual process of convergence with Standard French. These dialects developed from Latin and although it is almost impossible to draw up dialect boundaries, Ager is able to group these dialects into three zones according to their syntactical and phonological similarities. In this respect, the ability of the dialect to conform to Standard French corresponds to distance from Paris and the region where the dialect is spoken. The dialect of Francien spoken near Paris, (which was actually, out of all these Latin derived dialects, chosen as the base of Standard French), only displays light differences in syntax, vocabulary and pronunciation. Lorrain on the other hand, which is one of the la langue d’Oïl dialects spoken further from Paris, displays an abundance of pronunciation differences from Standard French. In spite of this, the findings of dialectologists, such as Gilliéron and Edmont in their Atlas linguistique de la France, have shown that it is impossible to draw up official dialect boundaries and define them geographically. What is actually forming is a continuum of transitional varieties with ‘pure’ dialect at one end and ‘standard’ French at the other with varying hybrid French dialects in between. These dialects are linked by a chain of mutual intelligibility. The similarity of the origin of the dialects and the consequent continuum ensure that there is no linguistic barrier to prevent them from being absorbed into the dominant language. Furthermore, the northern dialects are enclosed and isolated and receive no support from linguistic neighbours (as is the case of Dutch for Flemish and German for Alsatian).
Aitchison would view these dialects as committing ‘an act of suicide’. But from the perspective of the speakers’ attitudes, is this in fact the case? Arguably, contrary to McMahon’s opinion, the speakers’ attitudes do play a role in the demise of a dialect. Although speakers often change their speech habits subconsciously, there is a stigma attached to patois as being le mauvais français and speakers deliberately adopt more ‘prestigious’ styles of pronunciation. ‘Les locuteurs cherchent, dans une certaine mesure, à dépouiller leur langage de ce qu’ils resent comme des indices d’appartenance à des groupes sociaux peu valorisés.’ The term, ‘language suicide’ is therefore an appropriate one because the speakers themselves play a role in killing the language.
Language murder is the process caused by a situation of unstable diglossia, where the old language, which is not similar in origin or structure to the new language, is simply ousted by a new more prestigious language. Nancy Dorian, to whom the study of language death owes its name, was the first to observe this phenomenon in her study of the demise of Gaelic throughout Scotland. She observes that this process is caused by a speaker ‘favouring’ the languages they are exposed to at school and in the political and social community over the language used in the family environment. In the course of time, over generations, previously bilingual speakers forget the forms and constructions of their mother tongue because they have had little opportunity to practise the old language. For Dorian, the actual death of a language occurs when the younger generation can only recognise a few scattered words such as plants, foods and town names.
So how can ‘language murder’ be illustrated in twentieth century France? Lodge attributes this process to the dramatic decline in the use of the six regional languages in France. Interference between regional languages and standard French can occur, but unlike dialects, the differences of linguistic structure are such that mixed transitional varieties appear to be less common. Very few monolinguals are left in any one of the French regional languages and the young generally have a very basic knowledge of the regional language. Why is this the case? With the example of Occitan, ‘les locuteurs pour lesquels l’occitan est la première langue apprise sont très rares parmis ceux nés après 1945; ils devraient être quasi inexistants de nos jours.’ This situation is because the regional languages in France are used by the older generations in informal family or social environments. At the beginning of the twentieth century, regional languages were more autonomous due to political associations. During world war two, for example, Alsace was regarded as an integral part of Germany and the use of Alsatian was in order to oppose the French langauge. Its use today stems from a desire to promote cultural identity. Unlike la langue d’Oïl, attempts have been made to revitalise regional languages. However, attempts such as the standardisation of a regional language have been thwarted because standardising a regional language often goes against regionalism itself. Le souvenir de mistral reminds the French of the impracticality of codifying le dialecte de Maillane as Standard Occitan, because speakers of other dialects of Occitan could not understand it. In a similar way, standardised German or standardised Catalan marginalises the local varieties.
The regional languages in France are therefore in the process of being ‘murdered’ by Standard French. With regard to the attitudes of the speakers, speakers do not voluntarily abandon their regional language although there is a marked reluctance to use the language because of the increased limitations of its usage. Contrary to McMahon’s view, the speakers of regional languages are therefore, in some cases, playing a role in ‘murdering’ their regional dialect in favour of Standard French. Consequently, Aitchison’s term ‘language murder’, in making reference to this, is not necessarily an unsuitable one.
To conclude, it is evident that the regional languages and dialects of France are currently undergoing a gradual process of language death caused by the promotion of Standard French. ‘Language suicide’ is presently happening amongst la langue d’Oïl dialects which are experiencing a dialect continuum and converging with Standard French. ‘Language murder’ can be observed in the six regional languages in France. These dialects are becoming increasingly obsolete. Contrary to McMahon’s criticism of Aitchison, language suicide and language death can refer to the speakers’ attitudes. Speakers can consciously climb a dialect hierarchy or show reluctance in using their regional language. In this respect there is no danger of misinterpretation. The situation of diglossia in France is irreversible. Attempts to standardise regional variants goes against regionalism itself by ignoring the importance of other dialects within that region. In the final analysis, we could ask, with the growth of the EU and the predominance of the English language, should not the French nation be seeking one single and strong linguistic identity?
Bibliography
Ager, D. 1990. Sociolinguistics and Contemporary French. Cambridge: CUP pp.6-81
Aitchison, J. 2001. Language Change: Process or Decay. London: Fontana pp208-219
Chambers, J.K. and Trudgill, P. 1980. Dialectology. Cambride: CUP, P3-37
Lodge, R.A. 1993. French, from Dialect to Standard. London: Routledge pp 15,190-1,227
McMahon, A.M.S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: CUP pp284-293
Offord, M. 1990. Varieties of contemporary French. London: Macmillan. PP4-17,143-179
Offord, M. 1996. A Reader in French Sociolinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual
, P. 1980. Dialectology. Cambridge: CUP. PP3-37,57-84
Wheeler, M. 1998. Occitan. In M.Harris and N.Vincent (eds) The Romance Languages. London: Routledge, pp. 247-275
Internet Sites
Hubble, J. 1997. Politics and the Development of the French Language Standard
Brochure de la Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France,P30, http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dglf/lang-reg/LdF_v4.htm
Brochure de la Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France, P30, http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dglf/lang-reg/LdF_v4.htm
Aitchison, J. 2001. Language Change: Process or Decay. London: Fontana pp208-219
Aitchison, J. 2001. Language Change: Process or Decay. London: Fontana, p210
McMahon, A.M.S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: CUP, p287
Lodge, R.A. 1993. French, from Dialect to Standard. London: Routledge, p190
Ager, D. 1990. Sociolinguistics and Contemporary French. Cambridge: CUP, p.19
Chambers, J.K. and Trudgill, P. 1980. Dialectology. Cambride: CUP, P3-37
Offord, M. 1996. A Reader in French Sociolinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual, p.80
Aitchison, J. 2001. Language Change: Process or Decay. London: Fontana, p218
Lodge, R.A. 1993. French, from Dialect to Standard. London: Routledge, p190
Offord, M. 1996. A Reader in French Sociolinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual, p72
Ager, D. 1990. Sociolinguistics and Contemporary French. Cambridge: CUP, p51
Offord, M. 1990. Varieties of contemporary French. London: Macmillan. p,173