You have these words: the local agreement

The proximity agreement is a little familiar concept for many French speakers.It is applied when we write: competent men and women, rather than competent men and women.It is therefore an agreement that favors the relationship of an adjective with the closest name, and not the choice of a so -called "generic" male.

This rule is old, but it has just been highlighted in favor of debates on inclusive writing.The latter uses it to make part in grammatical primacy of the male genre on the feminine.This choice, which is not trivial, would be added to other changes in progress in the practice of French.Is it necessary to offer a local grammar for French speakers today?

PostScriptum 1

Debates on inclusive writing, a subject recently discussed in this chronicle, have put in the fire of the spotlights - and criticisms - the proximity agreement.This grammatical rule is little known to the general public: it rarely appears under this name in the usual grammars.Its field of application and the issues linked to it therefore deserve to be specified.

The proximity agreement applies to epithet adjectives that qualify several different genre names.Are we going to write: men and women in a hurry or the men and women in a hurry?The school has taught most of us that the male form in a hurry is essential, according to the rule that prevails the male genre over the feminine.But there are some who choose the feminine form in a hurry, in the name of the proximity agreement: it gives priority to the genre of the name closest to the adjective, that is the female of women here.The same principle would justify the statement of women and men in a hurry, the epithet then taking the genre of the nearest name, men.

It should be noted that the proximity agreement is based exclusively on the position of the name and the adjective in the statement.It is to be distinguished from another relationship: that which associates an adjective with the only name which it describes from the point of view of meaning.In the statement the subjective facts and preferences, the subjective epithet does not owe its genre to the spatial proximity of the name Preferences, but to the semantic relationship which it maintains with it: subjective cannot qualify made (unless'It is not alternative, but this is another story).

In the preceding examples, only epithets are taken into account.But the proximity agreement can also apply with an attribute adjective or with a past participle.If the statement The assets and weaknesses are unevenly distributed presents the form distributed to the masculine, "undifferentiated", the proximity agreement would impose in this case the assets and the weaknesses are unevenly distributed.The same rule would lead to the statement the weaknesses and the assets are unevenly distributed due to the spatial proximity of distributed with the masculine assets.

PostScriptum 2

Inclusive writing has above all highlighted the role of the proximity agreement in the attribution of the gender of adjectives.But this rule can also intervene in the choice of number.The school most often teaches that the plural is essential for an adjective when the latter qualifies several names, even if each of these is singular.The title of the collection of Alfred de Vigny, military servitude and grandeur, illustrates this principle.With an attribute, the same rule gives: a son-in-law and a stepfather that I found charming.

The application of the proximity agreement, on the other hand, gives statements like those noted by good use (16th edition, 2016, § 443 A 1), where the singular is justified by the agreement with the most nameClose: "universal concern and suffering" (Lamennais), "of an admirable correction and gravity" (Taine), "a thought and personal conduct" (Mauriac).We also find - although more rarely - examples with verbs and attributes: "their sleep and their awakening was all fragrant" (France).

Here again, we will notice that it is indeed a spatial proximity, not a semantic relationship.And that the choice of the authors cited is deliberate.It is therefore not the fruit of a distraction like the one that makes us grant a verb or an adjective with the closest element rather than with its grammatical referent.As in this intervention on the world site, noted by the journalists of the newspaper: "The" jungle "in Calais, the largest slum in France, who house thousands of people seeking to join England [...]".The proximity of the direct complement thousands of people won over the compulsory agreement of the verb with its jungle subject.

Is it not also the spatial proximity that explains the agreement of the verb in this sentence extracted from an internship report: "Most of us had never worked together before"?Generally, grammarians recommend granting the verb with most: "Most of us had never worked together before".But there is no shortage of written examples (good use, 16th edition, 2016, § 934 c) where it commands the agreement, which invites some tolerance for this tour.

PostScriptum 3

The local agreement, already known in Latin, was common in French in the 17th and 18th centuries.An academician like Vaugelas, supported by his peers of the Quai Conti, recommended it, unlike Malherbe.His argument was that the ear is struggling to accommodate a male adjective when the closest name is feminine genre.It should be noted, however, that this latitude was more readily accepted in the case of epithets than in that of attributes.The reason is that the contiguity of the attribute and the name which determines its genre is broken by a verbal form.

This reluctance has been perpetuated until today.Construction The depressed men and women hardly arouses a trenched opposition, in grammars or in the comments on inclusive writing;On the other hand, the statement men and women are depressed leads to some reluctance.These increase when the distance between the attribute and the subject to which he relates increases, as in the sentence: men and women, since their working conditions have changed, have been depressed.

The application of the proximity agreement is not always easier than that of the agreement with a "generic" masculine.Social networks are currently full of trap phrases from the unbridled imagination of inclusive writing adversaries.Are you going to write: the attractive p.D.G.and his fiancée are very impatient to get married or rather the attractive p.D.G.And his fiancée is very impatient to get married?No response is immediately imposed from an educational point of view.On the other hand, the one you give is inseparable from an ideological option: the choice of masculine endorses the "generic" character of the male genre;The choice of feminine - or a formulation that bypasses the obstacle, as the attractive p.D.G.And his fiancée impatiently await marry - avoids strengthening the stereotype "the masculine prevails over the feminine", preponderant in grammar ... and elsewhere.

These too fast comments on the local agreement will certainly be enriched by your reactions.However, I would like to recall that the application (or not) of the proximity agreement - both for gender and for the number - can not be isolated from a more general reflection on the transformations in the course of the grammar of French.This, so as to avoid increased complexification of the grammatical and orthographic system;But also to promote an "inclusive language", which promotes a "proximity agreement" between Francophones and their French ...