Francophonie

« J'ai le sentiment physique que le franзais d'aujourd'hui est insйparable de ce qu'il fut, qu'il n'existe qu'environnй de souvenirs … Plus les clichйs s'accumulent, plus la chimиre prend forme et plus la nostalgie s'empare de moi. Force m'est de constater : rien n'est plus comme avant, le franзais n'est plus la langue de la civilisation … Il est temps de dire qu'il existe un mythe de l'universalitй de la langue franзaise » (carefully built under the reign of Louis IX with the will to make French a transcendent language, a modern Latin). The Court maintained the worship of the French language universality (1784) by asserting that the specific qualities of this language and the resources of the French genius made it universal. P. de Broglie criticises this « Discours » which, without any doubt, flattered the national pride but did not reflected the linguistic reality. It maintained a misinterpretation of the French and of its relationship with other languages as the genius of the French is to be found elsewhere, i.e. in its capacity to support the exchange between different languages and cultures G. de BROGLIE, Le franзais pour qu'il vive, op. cit., p. 46. . However, such appears the project of a Francophonie born of the independences era. J.L. Roy is happy to see that the Francophonie has recently freed itself from the sclerosis and from a certain escape in the sublimation of the French language and seem able (since the Conference of Paris) to join forces and act with vitality to affirm itself like an immaterial and irresistible force of attraction and expression.

The danger also comes from the inside: J.P. Bronckart speaks about irritation and fear against the evolution of the French language and the apparent impoverishment which the speeches of the others make him undergo ». He insists on this largely widespread opinion which considers that the French language is threatened C. BALLY, La crise du franзais, Neuchatel, Delachaux, G. Niestlй, 1930. , that it undergoes « un processus de dйgйnйrescence, sous l'effet conjuguй de la nйgligence des francophones et de l'innovation de langues йtrangиres plus vivaces, en particulier de l'anglais » R. BALIBAR et D. LAPORTE, Le franзais national. Politique et pratique de la langue nationale sous la Rйvolution, Paris, ………...

4. Projection in an indefinite future

The literature abounds in declarations reconsidering the glorious past of the French language while projecting it without too much insurance in the future. The future indeed remains unspecified, dubious, still to be build: «La cause du franзais devient la cause de tous ceux qui sont passionnйment attachйs а la richesse de son hйritage et aux ressources de sa crйativitй » declares G. de Broglie who connects, in uncertain terms: « Langue glorieuse et menacйe, diverse et fragile, enracinйe et en suspension, son avenir dйpend en partie de sa capacitй а devenir en outre indispensable » G. de BROGLIE, op. cit., p. 34.

The institutional actors hold a relatively optimistic speech in the strategic perspective of moving beyond the stage of discomfort due to the fact that the weaknesses of the francophonie in general "are over-analysed" and thus "over-estimated" whereas its forces remain, on the other hand, "under-analysed" and consequently "under-estimated". This remark of J.L. Roy who defines the Francophonie as an alliance while declaring that French-speaking alliance does not exist yet, that it does not exist like a reality, that it will never be completed though it is at work in the world. J.L. ROY, La Francophonie. L'йmergence d'une alliance ?, Quйbec, Editions Hurtubise, HMH Ltйe, 1989, p. 11. J.L. Roy, at the time general Delegate from Quebec in Paris and member of the High-Council of Francophonie.