![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/inclusive-writing.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
On September 18, 2020, a\u00a0column published in Marianne<\/em><\/a>\u00a0signed by 32 linguists took a clear position against inclusive writing or, more exactly, against the use of abbreviated spellings (for example: students).\u00a0This forum was presented as an objective clarification denouncing a practice which, according to its signatories, \u201cis free from scientific facts\u201d.<\/p>\n The reactions were not long in coming.\u00a0On September 25, 2020, a\u00a0forum<\/a>\u00a0signed by 65 linguists took the opposite view of the first, while at the same time appeared a\u00a0text<\/a>\u00a0signed by \u00c9liane Viennot and Rapha\u00ebl Haddad and various\u00a0critical analyzes<\/a>\u00a0.\u00a0This controversy might seem anecdotal.\u00a0In fact, we can draw some interesting lessons on languages \u200b\u200band how they work, as well as on the use of expert scientific discourse to\u00a0found prescriptive discourse<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cwe must\u2026 we must not\u2026\u201d).<\/p>\n 30 years ago, in France, a movement led to the feminization of the names of functions, professions, titles and ranks.\u00a0Very quickly relayed by political authorities, it aimed to “legitimize the social functions and professions performed by women” (Decree of February 29, 1984).\u00a0He succeeded in imposing, in the uses and even under the dome of the French Academy (declaration of February 28, 2019), the use of feminine forms which were sometimes created (an engineer, a firefighter), sometimes rehabilitated (an author, an officer) or sometimes simply more widely distributed (the president, the senator).<\/p>\n This awareness has made it possible to develop the French language so as to meet the needs of people who speak French.\u00a0The difficulty that Francophones face today concerns the (good) ways of using these female names in all areas of life: administration, education, politics, artistic creation, business, daily life, etc.\u00a0Inclusive writing no longer designates feminization, but the use of these feminine names alongside masculine names in texts.<\/p>\n Inclusive writing, also known as epicene writing (in Switzerland and Canada), non-sexist writing or egalitarian writing, represents a set of techniques that aim to bring out equality, or symmetry, between women and men in texts. and to adopt a language which does not discriminate against women.\u00a0We choose here to consider inclusive writing without non-gendered writing, also called neutral or non-binary, which pursues an objective of inclusion of course, but also very specific: not to choose between the feminine and the masculine and not to categorize people according to their gender.<\/p>\n Some rules of inclusive writing are widely accepted and appear in all guides.\u00a0There are virtually no differences regarding the following:<\/p>\n (1) Use feminine names to designate women in their function, profession, title or rank: say “Madam President” and not “Madam President”, “the surgeon” and not “the surgeon”, “the officer of the Legion of Honor \u201dand not\u201c the officer of the Legion of Honor \u201d.\u00a0Note that some names, despite known roots, are not yet welcomed without restraint (for example: author or professor).<\/p>\n (2) Use the expression “women” as soon as you designate a group of women and reserve the expression “the woman” (or “the Woman”) to refer to a stereotype: say “the international day of human rights. women \u201dor\u201c the situation of women in Algeria \u201d;\u00a0but to say “this actress embodies the femme fatale”.<\/p>\n (3) Use “human, human” rather than “man” to denote a human person, as in “human rights”, “human evolution”.<\/p>\n (4) Always use the term “Madam” when addressing a woman (as the feminine counterpart of “Monsieur” when addressing a man) and no longer use “Mademoiselle”, which creates an asymmetry, since “Mondamoiseau” is rarely used.<\/p>\n (5) Do not name a woman after the office or title of her husband: say “the ambassador’s wife” and not “the ambassador”.<\/p>\n (6) Use the proper names of women as one uses those of men.\u00a0Do not use a woman’s first name when using a man’s last name, for example in a political debate (do not say “S\u00e9gol\u00e8ne against Sarkozy” or “S\u00e9go against Sarko”).\u00a0Do the same for the common names (do not say \u201cFed Cup girls\u201d and \u201cDavis Cup men\u201d).<\/p>\n Other rules still cause controversy (in France and Belgium in particular), because they create ways of writing or speaking that seem unusual.\u00a0The arguments invoked to defend or to reject these rules come from the history of language, linguistics, sociology or the psychology of language, and sometimes ideology.\u00a0However, current studies (a bibliography is available\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0) provide us with a scientific perspective that should help us navigate the intricacies of this subject.<\/p>\n (1) Use the masculine to designate a person whose gender you do not know, as in a job offer: “research computer scientist (M \/ F)”.\u00a0There is evidence that this rule does not promote fair treatment of women and men.\u00a0Numerous scientific studies have shown that the use of uniquely masculine terms (“a mathematician, a sales manager, a musician”) engendered masculine mental representations in adults on the one hand, but also in young people.\u00a0Even if this use is permitted by French grammar, it seems, for example, to influence the professional aspirations of young people.\u00a0It has as a consequence, in particular, to decrease the degree of confidence of the girls and\u00a0their feeling of self-efficacy to undertake studies for these trades.<\/a>).\u00a0It also gives the impression to young people that\u00a0men are more likely to succeed in these trades<\/a>\u00a0).\u00a0In sectors where one seeks to create more diversity, such as science and technology, or nursing, the so-called generic masculine should be avoided.<\/p>\n (2) Use the masculine plural to denote groups that contain women and men, such as \u201cmusicians\u201d to denote a mixed group.\u00a0It is proven that this rule does not favor an interpretation which corresponds to the designated reality.\u00a0Scientists have shown repeatedly (and in several languages) that, although the grammar allows a “generic” interpretation of the masculine plural, this interpretation is not as accessible or frequent as the specific interpretation (masculine = man).\u00a0This difference in accessibility was explained by different factors<\/a>), like the learning of grammatical gender, which invariably follows the same sequence: we learn the specific meaning of the masculine (masculine = man) before its generic meaning.\u00a0In other words, when we say “the musicians”, the mental representation that is most easily formed is that of a group of men, the specific meaning of the masculine being much easier and quicker to activate.\u00a0The mental representation of a group of women and men takes longer to train and more difficult to access.\u00a0The masculine bias induced by the masculine grammatical form has been demonstrated in different contexts and countries (\u00a0for example, in France<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0; in\u00a0Switzerland<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0and recently in Quebec).\u00a0Quite rare in science, there is, to our knowledge, no data contradicting the automatic dominance of the specific meaning of the masculine.<\/p>\n If one wishes to activate the image of mixed groups, it is preferable to use strategies other than the masculine, such as duplicates: “the surgeons”.\u00a0Despite these results, some people, sometimes through writing guides, commit to not using duplicates.\u00a0Different reasons are advanced, often without any real scientific basis.\u00a0For example, duplicates would hinder reading.\u00a0To our knowledge, no study supports this idea.\u00a0There is a study which shows that even if at the first occurrence of a duplicate, reading is slowed down, from the second occurrence,\u00a0reading becomes completely normal again (habituation effect)<\/a>).\u00a0The idea that people who use duplicates would not be able to achieve grammatical agreements in texts is also astonishing, especially\u00a0if we observe a return of the proximity<\/a>\u00a0agreement), a chord particularly suited to the use of duplicates .<\/p>\n On the other hand,\u00a0scientific studies<\/a>\u00a0show that the order chosen to present each element of the pair (“the bakers and the bakers” vs “the bakers and the bakers”) has an effect on the interpretation: the element presented first\u00a0is seen as more central or more important<\/a>\u00a0.<\/p>\n (3) Some people also agree not to use abbreviated forms which make it possible to present duplicates in writing: \u201cstudents\u201d, \u201cpharmacists\u201d.\u00a0The current results of scientific research are too limited to comment definitively on this subject.\u00a0One study<\/a>\u00a0) measured the effect of shorthand duplicates on reading.\u00a0It concerns a public of students for whom a slight slowdown in reading was measured at the first appearance of these forms, but then normalized.\u00a0However, we cannot conclude from this study that the effect would be the same, or different, for other populations.\u00a0And the reasons for the slowing effect, such as the habituation effect, are not yet fully understood.<\/p>\n It has also been shown that presenting trades in a contracted form (at the time with a parenthesis) can\u00a0increase girls’ confidence and feelings of self-efficacy in undertaking studies for these trades<\/a>\u00a0.\u00a0Research should nevertheless continue to test the effect of these abbreviated forms: according to the typographical sign used (dash, midpoint, etc.);\u00a0according to audiences of different ages, education levels, socio-economic levels;\u00a0depending on the types of texts.\u00a0Only additional research will make it possible to propose better informed rules to regulate the use of these forms, which appeared mainly to respond to the limits of signs imposed in various fields (journalism, Internet, etc.).<\/p>\n (4) Finally, some guides recommend more flexibility in the management of agreements.\u00a0To the established rule of the generic masculine agreement (\u201cthe brother and the sisters have arrived\u201d), they suggest leaving the possibility of applying the proximity agreement (with the closest term: \u201cthe brother and the sisters have arrived \u201d), majority agreement (with the most important element in number:\u201c the sisters and brother have arrived \u201d), or an agreement of your choice.\u00a0The historical argument is often invoked, and rightly so: the proximity agreement is observed in old texts\u00a0in 45% of cases.<\/a>, but it is still less frequent than the masculine chord.\u00a0The historical argument does not allow us to claim an exclusive \u201creturn\u201d to the proximity agreement, since it has always cohabited with other forms of agreements.\u00a0It does not allow to exclude it either, since it was important.\u00a0Research should show what specific problems, in learning, writing or understanding texts, pose these different types of agreements.<\/p>\n Current scientific knowledge makes it possible to clarify the validity of certain rules which give rise to disagreements.\u00a0For other rules, yet defended or contested in a very assertive manner, it is necessary to recognize that current knowledge does not yet allow a decision.\u00a0Research must continue to be done in order to provide arguments for the proposed tools.<\/p>\n The French language is not only the domain of scientists.\u00a0As scientists, we believe that uses must be allowed to develop because they meet basic communicative and social needs.\u00a0Not all uses are appropriate for all genres of writing, but the standard should not be overwhelming.\u00a0Let us also trust francophones.<\/p>\nSome historical milestones<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Rules that are (almost) not controversia<\/strong>l<\/h4>\n
Rules that spark controversy<\/strong><\/h4>\n
The inclusive writing war will not take place<\/strong><\/h4>\n