Le fabuleux destin des noms propres devenus communs par Jean Maillet (review)

Reviews 225 in the “auto-minorisation” by speakers in Picardie who devalue their own regional language practices. The volume is bookended by Klinkenberg’s intellectually lively and robust chapter on “la fabrique du francophone” and Mufwene’s far-reaching and thought-provoking ecological perspective on the differential evolution of French as a world language. The broad theme of language and legitimation around the discursive construction of the Francophone speaker exceeds any single volume. Some readers may wish for more focused discussions on key aspects surrounding the construction of minority language speaker and heritage language speaker identities, particularly in linguistically and culturally super-diverse settings where those identities may be highly racialized. For example, the notion of langue d’héritage as well as intersecting constructions of language, education, and race float through the chapters, without forming the focus of any of them. However, the book’s diverse chapters—all well written, methodologically solid and thematically interesting—will contribute to the reader’s engagement on different levels into this complex field of inquiry and reflection. Extensive bibliographies appear at the end of each chapter. This volume is a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners working on questions related to the construction of language/s and speaker identities in and across many disciplines, including sociolinguistics, anthropology, education, and applied linguistics. Sonoma State University (CA) Robert Train Maillet, Jean. Le fabuleux destin des noms propres devenus communs. Paris: Le Figaro, 2016. ISBN 978-2-8105-0759-7. Pp. 136. I begin this review with a brief quiz: in the following dialogue,which of the common nouns are derived from proper nouns? This exercise is worth six points. —Benjamin, pourquoi tu jettes ce club sandwich à la dinde à la poubelle? —Parce que la mayonnaise a tourné. Je prends plutôt des céréales. The correct answers represent the volume’s four divisions: common nouns derived from classical myths or legends (céréales, derived from the goddess Ceres); from the Bible (benjamin); from an investigator, authority, or amateur (le comte de Sandwich, Eugène René Poubelle); or from place names (poule d’Inde > dinde; Port-Mahon > mayonnaise, although this derivation is speculative). Each entry in this collection contains a well-documented etymology elaborated in a larger historical and cultural context, often accompanied by entertaining anecdotes. It turns out, for example, that Prefect Poubelle stipulated that trash be sorted into several containers, depending on its nature: glass, paper, oyster shells—un écolo avant la lettre! Although this volume is intended for a general readership, the linguist can also extract useful examples of the mechanisms driving semantic change. In the case of poubelle, the referent was expanded to signify the disdained object of the prefect’s attention. Subsequently, with increasing public acceptance of this innovation, the term lost its pejorative taint, entering the dictionary in 1890 to denote récipients à ordures without any disparaging connotation. In the evolution of this referent, social acceptance motivated semantic change with a shift in register. Another case: the name of King Jeroboam II, the eighth-century (BCE) king of Israel, is the origin of that very large bottle of champagne, un jéroboam. Jeroboam reigned during a prosperous time. His court enjoyed a lavish and eventually corrupt lifestyle. A two-magnum bottle of champagne becomes emblematic of these qualities, signifying la démesure. This collection also prompts reflection on the nature of borrowings, which compose a good number of terms in Maillet’s inventory. Most borrowings are viewed as “conférant à la conversation clarté, saveur et souvent poésie,” as the series editor claims in his preface (3). But in Messieurs les Anglais, pillez les premiers! (2016), Maillet rails against anglicismes, calling them lexicophages, Anglo-Saxon terms that gobble up “native” French terms.What are the criteria for their“naturalization”? Although Maillet accepts sandwich, he condemns “cet horrible ‘coach’, qui [...] pollue notre vocabulaire” (17). It may be argued that sandwich was borrowed because the item was a novelty with no referent in the target language and culture. I would counter that specific usages of coach fill a semantic gap that is not adequately represented by the “synonyms” that Maillet proposes (guide,maître,conseiller).Un coach is not only targeted...