Gallicism is an idiomatic expression in French, in other words a manner of speaking removed from the general laws of the language, and belonging exclusively to the French language. See Idiom.

“When, in a book written in Latin,” says the Dictionnaire de Trévoux about this word, “you find many phrases and expressions that are not at all Latin, and which seem taken from the French language, you judge that the work has been written by a Frenchman; we say that book is full of gallicisms .” This manner of speaking seems to indicate that the word gallicism is the proper name of a language vice, which in another idiom comes from the awkward or misplaced imitation of some expression proper to the French language; that a gallicism , in a word, is a sort of barbarism. [1] It is unbelievable how common this opinion is, and how little it is suspected of being wrong; it even caught unawares the sagacity of that illustrious writer whom death has just taken from the Encyclopédie , the creative grammarian whom we have had the temerity of succeeding, never daring to flatter ourselves we could replace him; that exact and profound philosopher who brought light to all the subjects he treated, and whose views spread abundantly in the parts he completed will constitute the principal merit of those we have to fulfill: in a word M. du Marsais [2] himself seems not to have been sufficiently on guard against the impression of this prejudice. This is how he explains it in the article Anglicism. “If one said in French fouetter dans les bonnes mœurs (whip into good manners) instead of saying fouetter afin de me rendre meilleur , [3] it would be an anglicism.” Does it not seem that M. du Marsais means that the English phrase is an anglicism only when it is transferred into another language? That is manifestly a mistake, and one which even those who appear to suggest or spread it have sensed: the definition which the authors of the Trévoux dictionary have given of the word gallicism and the one M. du Marsais has given of the word anglicism furnish the proof of this.

The essence of gallicism consists indeed in being an oddity of language exclusively specific to the French language. The gallicism in French is in its place, and it is there ordinarily to avoid a vice; in another language, it is either a borrowed locution which proves the affinity of that language with ours, or a figurative expression which imitation suggests to passion or need, or a wrong expression that arises from ignorance. But everywhere and in all cases, the gallicism is a gallicism in the sense we have assigned to it.

Chacun a son opinion [Each has his opinion]: this is a gallicism where usage authorizes the transgression of syntax of agreement, to avoid shocking the ear by a disagreeable hiatus . The principle of identity required that one say sa opinion ; the ear would have it heard as sonn-opinion , and the ear won out suavitatis causa . [4]

Elles sont toute déconcertées [They are completely disconcerted]: this is a gallicism where the usage that makes the word toute agree in gender with the subject elles pays no attention to agreement in number, to avoid a misinterpretation which would follow from it. [5] Toute here is a sort of adverb that modifies the meaning of the adjective déconcertées , as if one said elles sont totalement déconcertées . Contrariwise, toutes in the plural would be a collective adjective which would determine the subject elles , as if one said il n’y en a pas une seule qui ne soit déconcertée [there is not a single one of them who is not disconcerted]; it is thus to the keenness of the expression that the law of agreement is sacrificed here.

Vous avez beau dire [Say as you will]: this is a gallicism where usage allows the ellipsis to alter the physical integrity of the sentence ( see Ellipsis) to give it the merit of brevity. A Frenchman who knows his tongue understands this sentence as clearly and with more pleasure than if the full, but diffuse, loose, and heavy expression vous avez un beau sujet de dire were used: here it is for the purpose of brevity.

Il est incroyable le nombre de vaisseaux qui partirent pour cette expédition [It is incredible how many ships left on this expedition]: this is a gallicism where usage allows the subtraction of parts of the sentence from the order it has itself fixed, to give the whole an accessory meaning which the ordinary construction could not supply. It would have been possible to say le nombre de vaisseaux qui partirent pour cette expédition est incroyable [the number of ships that left on this expedition is incredible]: but we must agree that by means of this arrangement no part of the sentence stands out more than the others, whereas in the first the word incroyable , which comes first, against ordinary usage, seems to be there only to fix the mind’s attention better on le nombre des vaisseaux and as if to exaggerate the multitude: for the purpose of energy.

Nous venons d’arriver, nous allons partir [we have just arrived, we are about to leave]: these are gallicisms where usage is forced to strip the words nous venons , nous allons of their natural sense, and give them a foreign sense, to supplement inflections it has not authorized in the verbs arriver and partir any more than in any other. Nous venons d’arriver , in other words nous sommes arrivés dans le moment : an oblique expression of a recent preterit, to which usage has not granted anything analogous; nous allons partir , in other words nous partirons dans le moment : expression equivalent to a proximate future, which usage has not established. The bases of these sorts of locutions is the irresistible purpose of need.

We do not pretend to give here an exact list of all gallicisms ; it is not required of us, and execution of the project would not be without great difficulties.

It is evident in the first place that such a collection should be the subject of a specific work, the execution of which would assume the patience to withstand difficulties and delays, an exact and well thought-out knowledge of our language and its origins, and a profound and luminous philosophy; but its success, by enriching our grammar with a branch which up till now has been insufficiently cultivated, would assure the author of the gratitude of the entire nation, and a reputation as durable as the language itself. If this matter could figure in a dictionary, it would be suitable only to the dictionary of the Academy, [6] and not at all to the Encyclopédie . Here one should find only, so far as grammar is concerned, the general and logical principles of languages, or at most the principles, which, although proper to one language are nevertheless in the province of general grammar because they are more related to the nature of speech than to the particular genius of this language; because they constitute that genius rather than being a consequence of it; because they prove the fecundity of the art; because they can pass into possible languages; and because they extend the grammarian’s views. But all detail that concerns the pure material of any language whatever must be excluded from this dictionary, the plan of which leaves us the freedom to choose examples in the language we judge suitable. Our scruples in this regard go so far as to persuade us that we should have omitted the article Anglicism, which ought not to have appeared here, any more than the article Arabism , which we have not included, and a thousand others which will not be in it. The article Idiom, which includes them all, is the only encyclopedic article on this subject, and we offer this one only because we were repeatedly urged to do so. The articles A (word), ad, anti, ce, di or dis, she, in and within, es, future (adj.) are even more out of place; they ought to be found only in a French grammar or in a simple vocabulary.

We add, in the second place, that the project of detailing all gallicisms would not be without great difficulties. Their number is prodigious, and a number of able persons have remarked that if one excepts purely didactic works, the more taste an author has, the more his style exhibits those felicitous and often quaint irregularities that appear to violate the general rules of the language only to attain their end more surely. Besides, without knowing well the ancient and modern languages from which our own has drawn, one would often take for gallicisms expressions that would perhaps be hellenisms , latinisms , celtisms , teutonisms or idiomatic -isms of some other kind; and the philosophical precision we must above all envisage in this work does not allow us to expose ourselves to such errors.

1. It will be noted that this definition is closer to what is meant today by “gallicism” in English than the definition proposed by Beauzée in the rest of this article.

2. César Chesneau Du Marsais (1676–1756) contributed perhaps 150 articles for the letters A–G; this article appeared in 1757.

3. ‘Whip to make me better.’ The translation, “Whip into good manners,” is in English in the original.

4. ‘By reason of sonority.’ I.e ., the usual adjective for the feminine opinion would be sa , but standing before a vowel one says son instead.

5. The confusion he is trying to avoid here is between “They are completely disconcerted” and “They are all disconcerted.”

6. The third edition of the Dictionnaire de l’Académie Française had been published in 1740.