Pascale Casanova (1959–2018)

As languages or linguistics are one of my interests, even though I don't follow any studies on the subject, nor do I thoroughly look for articles or books, I do like some (general) language reading from time to time, be it academic or popular, as you can see here.

At the end of July, I made a quick trip to Paris, France, and it was only by accident that I came across a bookshop: L'Arbre du Voyageur (roughly translated: The Traveller's Tree). I only had a few minutes, but I had to go in there. The first shelf I saw, by accident, had something to do with languages, sociology, ... and the first book I picked was this one: 'La Langue mondiale - Traduction et domination' by Pascale Casanova. She was a professor and well-known literary critic. Was, as she passed away in September 2018.

----------

This small book was her last work, published by Éditions Seuil. It contains five chapters (rough translation of the titles by me), sandwiched between an introduction (Exordium) and an epilogue (Exitus):

1) The bilingualism Latin-French
2) When French had to be defended/protected
3) Translation as conquest
4) The Beautiful Infidels
5) Leopardi and the French Language

Mrs Casanova treats in a concise, yet pretty complete manner how Latin was previously the most prestigious and noble language in the world (or rather, Europe). It was applied in education, politics, religious affairs, writing, and so on. French, on the other hand, was the language for everyday use, spoken by the common people, and at that, pretty poor in vocabulary and grammar.

Little by little (especially in the 16th to 19th centuries; let's also not forget the founding the the Académie française in 1639, thanks to King Louis XIII and Cardinal Richelieu), French became richer and more varied in content, in style, and ultimately, a world language. As is common today, French took over words from Latin, translated texts from Latin to French (on the one hand, quite a "loose" translation, not to say "reinterpreted"; on the other hand, translations closer to the original texts). And so, Latin lost more and more of its power, though it took several centuries to accomplish that. As it took several decades for English to take over from French as dominant language. See for recent examples: business English and the fact that French (and other languages) have added many English words (with or without a little tweaking) to their own vocabulary.

Mrs Casanova also shows how a dominant language can really influence or even eradicate a dominated language. Even if people are bilingual (or speak at least two languages and can switch from one to the other) are also dominated and dominant. Another myth she debunks is: it's not because language x is the (most) dominant one, that it's also - on a larger scale - the most powerful one on an economic or military level.

Another point she addresses is the fact that language (and thus translation) can be used as a weapon to eradicate other languages, like countries fight other countries for dominance or resources. Several examples are presented to demonstrate this kind of undertaking.

Leopardi was an Italian writer, a fierce defender of his mother-tongue, but also appreciative of the French language. He fought for the distinction between the two, not e.g. French dominating Italian, since - as is written elsewhere in the book - Italian was also, at some point, considered higher on the hierarchical ladder than French, since Italian was more closely related to Latin. French also evolved from Latin, but this is another example of one language finding itself better, more worthy than the other.

Mrs Casanova based her discourse on several works, like:

* [b:La Deffence, & Illustration De La Langue Françoyse|8229193|La Deffence, & Illustration De La Langue Françoyse|Joachim Du Bellay|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/book/50x75-a91bf249278a81aabab721ef782c4a74.png|6844060] by [a:Joachim Du Bellay|126938|Joachim Du Bellay|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1303210434p2/126938.jpg]
* [b:Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature|80795|Mimesis The Representation of Reality in Western Literature|Erich Auerbach|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388964005l/80795._SY75_.jpg|515821] by [a:Erich Auerbach|17777|Erich Auerbach|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1340722270p2/17777.jpg]
* [b:Translation in Systems: Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained|4200604|Translation in Systems Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained|Theo Hermans|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1290965283l/4200604._SX50_.jpg|4247978] by [a:Theo Hermans|268164|Theo Hermans|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
etc.

Her idea of language is one of equality, that all languages should be treated as equal, without one dominating (or be considered more prestigious, more classy, ... than) the other for whatever reason.

Translations are very common nowadays. Especially translations from English into another language (French, German, Dutch, ...), whereas not as much books get translated from the other languages into English. A bit of arrogance on the English side, which in this way considers itself more important than the others. Since English is spoken and written around the world, why bother translating works in foreign languages into English? But in this way, English remains stagnant, whereas other languages are enriched, sort of, through translations.

However, Mrs Casanova also showed how translations were (or are?) regulated in such a way, that it would be hard to distinguish the original from its translation: this could have happened by asking the translator to translate in such a way that it wouldn't look like a translation (thus adapting one's style to fit that of the source language); or, those who commanded a translation, would omit the translator's name on purpose (another example of how translations would be used as a weapon). What do you mean, respecting the translator and his/her work? Throughout the centuries, many times, it seems, translations were forged, tampered with, all for the "higher good" of the target language (French, in this case). But who knows what happened back when Latin copied from Greek?

Also, translations aren't always taken from the source language, but from a secondary language. For instance: from Chinese over German to English. This also means you may lose meaning and thus not correctly translate what was originally written.

----------

The writing style of Mrs Casanova is not that accessible; despite having improved my knowledge and comprehension of the French language the last four years, there were several times I had to plough through her sometimes heavy wording, especially with the several sub-clauses. It's an academic work, after all. The mentioning of older works and their authors was not that much of a problem to understand what she meant. Of course, if you're familiar with these works or authors, it's easier to follow her line of thought. Du Bellay, Erich Auerbach, Leopardi, etc. are all unknown to me. But I'm glad she mentioned those books as footnotes on the respective pages and not as a collection of notes at the end of this essay.

----------

To cut things short: Mrs Casanova's last work is, if I understood correctly, a plea for respect for all languages and their characteristics, their own voice, their own identity, despite the loan words, the copying, and so on. I found it very interesting to read how Latin (which took over the throne from Greek) dominated Europe, but then had to leave its place for French (although German and Italian also fought for dominant positions), which in turn had to step down in favour of English (currently a or the dominating language). Also interesting to read is how translations were dealt with so many centuries ago (reinterpret or stay close to the original?) and how these still impact today's politics, economy, writing and publishing, and more.

I might check out other such works (language history, translation history, ...) later to have a broader view of the subject.

In the meantime, this recent little book just came to mind: [b:Le français est à nous ! Petit manuel d’émancipation linguistique|45029724|Le français est à nous ! Petit manuel d’émancipation linguistique|Maria Candea|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1555102882l/45029724._SX50_.jpg|69773888] by [a:Maria Candea|16390849|Maria Candea|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] and [a:Laélia Véron|19053416|Laélia Véron|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]. Something to check out in the near future?

Other reviews, which analyse/dissect the book better than me:
* La Main de Thot (magazine)
* Hypotheses.org (this one didn't like the essay)
* nonfiction.fr
* Quebecfrancais.org
* mediapart.fr… (meer)

“The purpose of this book is to restore a point of view that has been obscured for the mot part by the ‘nationalization’ of literatures and literary histories, to rediscover a lost transnational dimension of literature that for two hundred years has been reduced to the political and linguistic boundaries of nations….[T]here exists a ‘literature-world,’ a literary universe relatively independent of the everyday world and its political divisions, whose boundaries and operational laws are not reducible to those of ordinary political space” because “[l]ittle by little…literature succeeded in freeing itself from the hold of the political and national authorities that originally it helped to establish and legitimize. The accumulation of specifically literary resources, which involved the invention and development of a set of aesthetic possibilities, of forms, narrative techniques, and formal solutions….--in short, the creation of a specific history (more or less distinct from national history, from which it could no longer be deduced)—allowed literary space gradually to achieve independence and determine its own laws of operation.” “[L]iterature found itself at last in a position to assert its own autonomy.”
This description of ”internationalization…signifies…the opposite of…the neutralizing term ‘globalization,’ which suggests that the world political and economic system can be conceived as the generalization of a single and universally applicable model. In the literary world…it is the competition among its members that defines and unifies the system while at the same time marking its limits….[A]ll writers attempt to enter the same race, and all of them struggle…to attain the same goal: literary legitimacy.”… (meer)