256 en effet
sabilitö, are less direct as translations than those seen in the previous
ples. Again in the following one, it is with an implication, rather than
actual words, that the connector makes its link. What makes for
semantic logic is the reader's assumed knowledge of the penal codc:
Dans ce village de mille habitants, la moitid seulement des habitants
les autres sont priv6s de leurs droits civiques. Mauzac abrite, en effet,
1986, un 6tablissement p6nitentiaire r6servd aux « d6linquants moyens »,
In each of these two examples, the second sentence could be in
as follows: C'est que, en cas de perte ou de vol and Car Mauzac
depuis 1986. The relationship between en effet and car has exercised
a French grammarian and purist. For some, the two expressionl
synonymous and therefore the combination car en effet is an in
solecism; for others not. In any case, though denounced as a
fröquent (Hanse, 1983:1,97), the combination of car and en effet is
contemporary written French.
It is only this second mode which introduces new information. In
following example, about a painting which may or may not be
the second sentence does not just reword the information already
in the first:
La poldmique qui a resurgi ä propos de I'authenticit€ drt Verrou de
risque de prendre fin. Le tableau a subi en effet un examen
dans les laboratoires du Louvre en novembre et d6cembre de
derniöre.
en effet and en 6in
fact' and 'indeed'
faitr
This connector can be problematical for speakers of English who
means 'in fact' or 'indeed'. They confuse a very specific French
with two unspeciflc English ones; they also confuse en effet with ctl
On this, they could be misled by French lexicography: the flrst
given of this structure in both the Robert and the Trösor de la
frangaise is en röalitö, en fait. This misinformation derives from older
naries, like the Acad6mie's, which also recorded the fact that,
en e.ffet sometimes functioned like present-day en fait.Yinay &
give an enlightening note on the crucial difference between en fait
effer:
On notera que les dictionnaires ne peuvent pas donner de bons 6q
« en effet », parce qu'il leur faudrait citer autant d'exemples que de
Beaucoup d'Anglais sont port6s ä traduire « en effet » par « in fact », qui
spond au franqais « en fait ». Mais en fait « en fait " est le contraire dt
effet » : Il a dit qu'il s'en occuperait, en fait c'est moi qui ai tout fait / ll e
qu'il s'en occuperait, et en effet il a fait tout le tavail.
(Vinay & Darbelnet, 227, n,
en effet 257
llcllrl'ul as it is, this still equates en fait with'in fact', which is also a faulty
nnrl nrisleading rule. The following extract from a discussion of the useful-
Irers of screening men for prostate cancer, containing both French
rltuctures, illustrates in another way the difference between them:
lrnut-il d6pister le cancer de la prostate ? Un homme qui ne ressent aucun
trouhle a-t-il intdret ä chercher ä savoir s'il en est atteint ? A priori, on pour-
ririt le croire. En effet, c'est un cancer frdquent (13 000 nouveaux cas chaque
rrrrnde) et pour lequel on dispose de techniques de ddpistage. En fait, la r6ponse
ll'cst pas simple. Le d6bat est ouvert et il a ses extr6mistes'
Ftrrrclioning here in its second mode, en effet introduces a statement
glnlirming the implication of the previous sentence: that there might
tlrlrerrr to be some point in screening for this cancer. Then en fait, the
tet'rlrcl element of the antithesis initiated by a priori, casts doubt on the
Valrtlily of these appearances.
ll rr translator writing in English really needs an equivalent of en effet,
lhe lrrcaning expressed by it is usually 'sure enough'. But English sentences
forcly need a connector serving this purpose; and if one added'sure
96rrrrgh' to every translation of a statement with en effet, one would soon
wlle non-English. It is with en effet that the frequency in English of the
tlrut uii're-zöro becomes at times obvious. English often needs no connector
tl lrlrrccs where en effit is used in French. In the following example of
pttglrsh-language journalism, without en effet to show that the second
llslrrrrcnt only conflrms and precises the flrst, it would be theoretically
prrrrhlc, but only theoretically, to believe that the two sentences spoke
gl lwo tlifferent events, instead of the same one:
I'ltc Iranian Government has been asked to upgrade security at the Australian
I'rrrhirssy in Teheran because of fears of reprisals against Australia in the wake
ul tlre attack on the Iranian Embassy in Canberra. The Iranian Ambassador
lu Australia, Mohammed Abianeh, said yesterday he had asked his Government
Iil l)ul on extra security for Australian diplomats in Teheran, saying there was
I il rlunllor.
pne ol'lhe roles of. en effet being to obviate that sort of potential ambi-
lullv, rr good French translator would probably insert this connector in
lhe rccond sentence.
JEmt*. u*"g"
'r's of texts written in former times should beware the fact that, since
xeventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the connective function of en
Irls profoundly changed. As stated above, it once served two func-
: rrot only its present confirming one but also the oppositive one now
verl hy en .fait.In Racine: Reine longtemps de nom, mais en effit captive
rrlrrtr,, linc 136) and Rousseau: C'ötait en apparence h mAme situa-
Titles of related interest
ctionary of
ntemporary
ench Connectors

Modern French Grammar

Margaret Lang and Isabelle Perez
Manual of Business Flench
Stuart W illiams and N athalie M c Andrew - C a zorla

The Frenc} Language Today Grieve

Adrian Bauye and Marle-Anne Hintze
A Hlrtory ol tho f,rone.h Lrryurgc
Pctcr Rlckard
A Hlrtory ol th Ernch Lrnjuryc Through Texts
Wondy Ayru.Bonncu
frsnch Fron Dldoc{ to §trndrrd
R, Anthony Lotlgc

london and New York