| Titre | Le problème des variantes graphiques : variantes du passé, du présent et de l'avenir | |
|---|---|---|
| Auteur | Nina Catach | |
 |
Revue | Langue française |
| Numéro | no 108, décembre 1995 La variation graphique et les rectifications de l'orthographe française (1990) sous la direction de Nina Catach | |
| Rubrique / Thématique | I. Le statut linguistique de la variation |
|
| Page | 25-32 | |
| Résumé anglais |
The problem of Spelling Variants, Past, Present and Future Modern French is remarkable not only for its extraordinary and long-standing stability, but also for another characteristic : its diversity and variation. While the latter is readily accepted and considered as normal in oral usage, it remains almost unheard of or is disregarded in normalised written usage. However, it continues to exist nonetheless, and it must be dealt with. If we look at dictionary entries, it would seem that the lexical items most affected by spelling variation belong the "outer reaches" of the vocabulary : archaisms, popular, scientific and technical terms, loan-words, etc. In 1971, we were able to identify over 8,000, taken from various dictionaries (and even sometimes from the same dictionary) of 36,00 words on average. Even in the everyday vocabulary, we can find whole sections in which variations concerning the use of accents, the hyphen, the plural of compound words and double consonants are rife. As the vocabulary expands, so does the proportion of spelling variants, thereby causing difficulties for the user. When in doubt, we consult a dictionary : but which dictionary should we consult ? This "laxist" tendency could become dangerous, now and in the future, if it is not carefully controlled, by eliminating useless variants and introducing more modern variants based on a solid analysis and on current spelling tendencies. The question remains of how to put these principles into practice. The best way would be to follow the example of the Dictionary of the Academie française, which indeed most modern dictionaries do follow. If there are two spelling forms, the first one, which appears in the alphabetical order of the dictionary, will be not the most important. In the case, of a new orthography, the new form is first of all proposed alongside the old one with an observation such as : "We also write/we now write...", etc. In the following editions, the new orthography is given first, in alphabetical order, the old one following or given as a cross-reference. In this way, both forms become familiar to the user. Lists of normalised variants can be drawn up and published and used as preferential forms ; the old forms continue to exist as variants. This principle of long-term, gradual change, guided the Report on the Rectifications of orthography (December 6th, 1990), and their method deserves to be followed and imitated today. By gradually changing the spellings of words, we can reduce the proportion of uncontrolled variation, which causes the most problems in the everyday vocabulary. Source : Éditeur (via Persée) |
|
| Article en ligne | http://www.persee.fr/doc/lfr_0023-8368_1995_num_108_1_5314 |
