The rule according to which « the masculine takes precedence over the feminine » is often perceived as an immutable principle of the French language. However, this grammatical norm has not always existed. For a long time, proximity agreement, which made adjectives agree with the nearest noun, coexisted with other forms of agreement. So, why and how did the masculine end up dominating? This article explores the origins and implications of this controversial rule, between linguistic tradition and sociopolitical heritage.
The question of whether the masculine has always « prevailed » over the feminine in the French language cannot be treated in a simple and univocal manner. Far from being an immutable rule since the origin, the grammatical domination of the masculine is the result of a historical and social construction, influenced by the dominant conceptions of each era. The history of the language shows that agreement rules have evolved over time, sometimes at the mercy of debates that went far beyond linguistics and touched on social representations of the masculine and feminine.
Language, as a social fact, is subject to constant dynamics of change. It adapts to usage, reflects mentalities and can also be the terrain of ideological struggles. For several decades, the debate on the supposed sexism of French has intensified, particularly around the question of the agreement of adjectives and past participles. The current rule, according to which « the masculine takes precedence over the feminine, » has not always prevailed. Its establishment results from a process at the crossroads of linguistics and societal conceptions of gender hierarchy.
In the history of French, grammatical agreement was not always based on the superiority of the masculine. Until the Middle Ages, the dominant rule was that of proximity agreement: an adjective or participle agreed with the nearest noun, regardless of its gender. Thus, a sentence like « The men and women are equal » would not have been considered incorrect. This usage, inherited from Latin, persisted until the 17th century and was employed by numerous authors, including certain members of the French Academy. It coexisted with another form of agreement, sometimes random, which varied according to writers and the linguistic sensibilities of the moment.
However, from the 17th century onwards, grammarians, under the influence of academic norms, gradually discarded proximity agreement in favor of the current rule. This evolution did not occur for strictly linguistic reasons, but rather under the effect of social representations valorizing the primacy of the masculine. Claude Favre de Vaugelas, one of the first academicians, saw no inconvenience in writing « the heart and mouth open » (with feminine agreement). But others, like the Jesuit Dominique Bouhours, believed that « when the two genders meet, the nobler one must prevail. » This point of view, widely shared at the time, was based on a hierarchical vision of the world, where the masculine symbolized strength and nobility, while the feminine was perceived as subordinate.
This shift from a flexible rule to a rigid norm was endorsed in the 18th century, notably by the grammarian Nicolas Beauzée, who declared that « the masculine gender is reputed more noble than the feminine because of the superiority of the male over the female. » This statement clearly reflects how linguistic conventions have been shaped by ideologies that go beyond grammar alone. By imposing the predominance of the masculine, a patriarchal vision of the world was thus consecrated, where language served to reflect and reinforce power relations between the sexes.
Today, this rule is being questioned by certain linguistic and feminist currents. Several alternative proposals have emerged, including majority agreement, which consists of making the adjective agree with the most numerous noun in an enumeration, or inclusive writing, which aims to make the feminine visible through doublets or marked forms, such as the use of the middle dot (example: « the candidat·e·s »). Others advocate for a return to proximity agreement, arguing that it is a historical tradition of French.
However, these proposals do not achieve unanimity and raise both practical and theoretical challenges. Proximity agreement, although historically attested, can lead to confusion in certain contexts. For example, in a sentence like « The male and female voters registered will be able to vote, » one might understand that only women are concerned by registration. Similarly, inclusive writing poses problems of readability and oral transmission, which hinders its widespread adoption.
Beyond linguistic considerations, these debates testify to a broader issue: that of gender representation in society. Language structures our perception of the world and conveys deep cultural norms. Modifying its agreement rules therefore does not only involve a grammatical choice, but a desire to transform mentalities and collective representations.
In sum, the rule according to which « the masculine takes precedence over the feminine » has not always existed and is not an immutable principle of French. It is the product of a historical evolution marked by sociopolitical influences. Its maintenance or questioning goes beyond the strict framework of grammar and is part of a broader reflection on gender equality and the way language reflects – or perpetuates – power relations. The question is therefore not only to know which rule to apply, but also to determine which models of thought we wish to inscribe in our linguistic practices.
Jocelyn Godson HÉRARD, Copywriter H-Translation
