In my ongoing reflections on French theatre, I became curious about the origins of what we call “international pronunciation.” This neutral diction, free of regional accents, is often used in classical French theatre in Quebec, as though it were the “real” or “correct” way to pronounce classical French. However, this way of speaking didn’t come from Molière or the 17th century but something far more recent.
A national identity in the 19th century
In the 19th century, France entered a period of intense centralization: the French state modernized its institutions, codified the language and sought to build a strong national identity. Theatre, which was considered a prestigious art form, became a tool for cultural unification. The notion of a national theatre began to take shape and with it the idea of a standardized national language.
Major institutions, such as the Comédie-Française (a French national theatre founded in 1680), adopted a pronunciation that was considered “ideal,” stripped of any trace of regionalisms. This diction became the benchmark, and the idea of having a “proper French” for use on stage was gradually established.
French for the stage: Manufactured and standardized
This “proper” pronunciation was not founded in popular tradition. Rather, it was constructed within institutions (France’s academies and conservatories) and taught to actors as the ideal. The belief was that in order to honour the classics, actors must:
- adopt one standard way of speaking
- eliminate regional accents
- standardize their rhythm and musicality
But this approach erases the social and regional differences of the characters in a play, resulting in a uniform language that doesn’t belong to anyone.
And this uniformity is completely at odds with the historical reality. In the 17th century, theatre troupes were made up of people from very different regions, such as Languedoc, Burgundy, Provence and Normandy, a fact which led to a variety of accents, cadences and styles on stage.
Unity that becomes uniformity
This uniform pronunciation was exported and adopted elsewhere, including in Quebec, where it’s still widely taught in theatre schools. It has become synonymous with the idea of professionalism and even a kind of international standard of approval.
The result is the coexistence of two types of French:
- a living, pluralistic French, used in everyday life
- a standardized French, reserved for the stage, so neutral it teeters on abstraction
This standardized French blurs the contrasts between characters, distances the audience and implicitly conveys the idea that there is a “correct” way to speak, and therefore an incorrect way.
Diversity in speech
The idea is not to reject the precision or clarity of the language but to remember that the theatre is a space where not everyone has to speak the same way. Throughout history, people have had different accents, cadences and ways of speaking.
It’s also interesting to note that some of Michel Tremblay’s plays are performed all over the world, sometimes with very strong accents, and no one is bothered. But when it comes to the “classics,” the slightest deviation in diction is, for some, an unforgivable offence. It’s as though these works demand a pure, unchanging language, despite the fact that they’ve always been performed by actors with different ways of speaking.
Challenging international pronunciation is not a sign of provincial thinking. Quite the opposite, it’s a way of restoring theatre to its primary role: fostering the coexistence of unique, authentic voices.
