On the Spelling of “Resumé”

The question of how to spell the name of that document involves complications that only a few such issues do. They’re all discussed in detail here: why “resume” is okay in e-mails but makes you look bad in fields that value language skills; and the advantage of using only the last accent. Other discussions on the Web miss most of the relevant points. (That includes the Web pages that have obviously copied from this page over the last ten years. My thanks to those who have linked to this page.)

By the way: for what you need to know about the terms “resumé” and “CV,” click here.

You’ve reached an uncommon source for information about resumés.

This page is just one example of how deeply I’ve gotten into every aspect of resumés. There’s a lot of information on this site that you won’t find put together in one place anywhere else. Some of that information will change the way you think about resumés—and make your job search a lot more successful and a lot less worrisome.

I don’t settle for the myths that the majority of resumé writers and advisers—including some so-called “experts”—have repeated endlessly for years without ever thinking to check them. Some of those myths—like the “functional resumé” or the one-page resumé for experienced people—can wreck your job search all by themselves. Read more about these “Killer Myths” on the Tips & Myths page. You’ll find the #1 Resumé Tip on that page especially helpful, too.

The FAQ page takes you right to answers to some commonly asked questions. Look through the Resumé Encyclopedia, with definitions and in-depth information about resumé terminology and technology. Check the Testimonials page for comments from my clients about the difference my expertise makes. And then take a look at the home page to start finding out how I work.

This expertise means that I can give exceptional value for your money, even compared to other resumé services in the same price range. And the payback to you for that extra quality can be immense.






All factors considered, I think “resumé” (one accent), though it has no historical basis, is the best spelling for this word when used as an English word to refer to a summary of someone’s qualifications for employment. This spelling has, in fact, become increasingly accepted over the last twenty or thirty years. “Resumé” in this sense is an English word, not a French one. It’s not pronounced like the French word. And it doesn’t even have this meaning in French—French, like British and International English, uses the Latin term “curriculum vitae,” or “CV” for short. (Both terms have a narrower sense in the U.S.)

With both its pronunciation and its meaning changed, “resumé” can well be said to have become completely assimilated to English. Many other French words went the same route centuries ago. In most such cases, the accents have been dropped without any awkward consequences. But in this particular word, the accent over the final -e is still necessary, to indicate pronunciation and to distinguish “resumé” from the verb “resume.” (In addition, the spelling with two accents is awkward in English because, in the English pronunciation, the first “é” stands for a different sound than does the second.)

This is not a question the average job-seeker needs to sweat over. “Resumé” and “résumé” are always acceptable. “Resume” is very widely accepted too, though it should be avoided in fields where language skills are valued (except in the case of e-mails—see below). Whichever spelling you prefer, make sure you use it consistently. But make sure you read the following important technical note:



At least in the U.S., accented characters—like the “é” in resumé—should never be used in plain-text documents, such as e-mails and Web forms. Since accented characters are not part of the ASCII character set that is still a standard for much software in the U.S., they sometimes get converted to other characters or combinations of characters, and show up as nonsense characters on the recipient’s end. In these documents, “resume,” without accents, is safest.

You should also avoid using accented characters in filenames—especially if you’re sending the files to someone else.



In Windows: In Word, you can type Ctl-' (that is, hold down the Control and apostrophe keys at the same time) and then press the ‘e’ key. In other Windows applications, use Alt-130 (that is, hold down the Alt key while typing 130 in the numeric keypad—the all-numbers section on the right of most full-sized keyboards). On a Mac: Press Option-e and then press the ‘e’ key. Unix systems are less standardized in this respect. Try Compose-e-'. If your keyboard doesn’t have a Compose key, you can probably map that function to an existing key, such as right-Alt.


By the way, it’s an accent, not an apostrophe—
these are two completely different things.

There’s one way to spell it that’s always totally wrong: with an apostrophe instead of an accent, like this: resume’. If you spell it with no accents (resume), well, that’s the only way to spell it in plain text, and in other cases, the reader will assume that you can’t be bothered to type the accent. They may or may not downgrade you on that score. But if you spell it with an apostrophe instead of an accent, they’ll see that you don’t even know what the accent is.


You don’t have to sweat over the spelling of “resumé.” But as a professional resumé writer I have to make a considered decision about which spelling to use, and want to choose the best if one is even a little better than the others. When you start looking closely at the question of how to spell the name of that vital piece of paper, it gets rather more complicated than most spelling questions are, because there are an unusual number of factors involved. In this case, sorting out those factors, weighing them, and working out the best balance between them is a matter for painstaking thought by experienced professional language mechanics with some specialized linguistic knowledge. I’ve had my shot at it, and the conclusions above are based on that effort. In case you’re interested, I’ve written down the details below.




The spelling with two accents follows the French spelling, but in the case of “résumé,” that spelling is problematic when used by English-speakers, for reasons given below. Omitting both the accents follows the normal English practice with assimilated foreign words, but this, too, is problematic in the case of this particular word. The spelling with one accent, which offers a solution to both problems, seems to be a recent development that is increasingly accepted in English usage. Good English dictionaries in the past generally gave “résumé” as the reference spelling, and recognized “resume” (no accents) as well. For instance, “resumé” isn’t found in the first edition of the Random House Dictionary (unabridged, 1966) or the full Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed., 1989). More recent editions of authoritative dictionaries (Random House Dictionary, 2nd ed., 1987; American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed., 1992; and the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 5th ed., 2002) also recognize “resumé.” The fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (2000) gives “resumé” as the reference spelling.

The Shorter Oxford notes that the spelling “resumé” (one accent) is particularly associated with the sense of a summary of employment qualifications, which sense is “chiefly North American.”

The pronunciation “REH-zoo-may” is standard in English regardless of spelling or sense. (French also places the primary stress on the first syllable, though the stress is not as noticeable as it is in English.)

Good writers don’t depart from historical spelling without some strong reason that is widely recognized, and then only in those rare cases where there is no stronger reason for retaining the historical spelling. The development of a consensus about such changes takes time, even when the questions are simple enough to be decided by the accumulation of decisions made on the fly by knowledgeable writers.

In the case of the word “resumé,” however, there are an unusual number of conflicting factors bearing on the question. This complicates and slows down the evolutionary process. Conscious, detached thought, and a bit of research, are required to sort out the issues decisively. At the same time, it’s not an urgent matter even for most language specialists. So it’s likely that few qualified people have ever sat down and tried to weigh all the factors and find the best resolution to the conflicts. And in any case, it would take time for word to get around. The Wiktionary article on “résumé” is a good discussion. The postings I’ve seen on Web discussion forums only demonstrate the inadequacy of casual opinions on this particular question—whether they come from laymen or, worse, from the second-rate professionals who are the source of most of the writings on language and grammar seen by the public. This includes some books that pass for style guides in some offices.)

In the case of “resumé,” there is a strong reason for making a change from the historical spelling. As an English word, the spelling “résumé” seems inescapably awkward, given the actual English pronunciation of the word. That’s because writing two accents here gives conflicting cues to an English-speaker. With the English pronunciation, if the word is spelled with two accents, the same sign represents two different sounds in the same word—in the first syllable, ‘é’ is pronounced like the short ‘e’ in bet, in the third syllable it is pronounced like the long ‘a’ in “may.” (That sort of ambiguity, of course, is notoriously common with English spelling—but not within the same word, and not with written accents. “Résumé,” as far as I know, is the only word used in English that presents an ambiguous case with written accents, so there is no group of similar cases that can constitute a generally accepted rule for pronunciation. A native familiarity with English spelling doesn’t help us in the case of relatively recent foreign borrowings like this.)

Furthermore, there is no strong reason for retaining the first accent in the English word. Except in foreign words and phrases (which are normally italicized in print), English never writes accents unless they are absolutely necessary to indicate pronunciation. (For instance, on your restaurant sign, when your restaurant is a cafe.) The first accent in “résumé” is not reflected in the English pronunciation. If it were, we’d say “ray-zoo-may,” not “reh-zoo-may.” (If we were speaking French, we’d say “hray-zoo-may.”) Someone reading “résumé” knows, of course, how the word is pronounced. But there’s still a hitch in the reading while the signs are interpreted. Too many little hitches like this add up to a document that is difficult to read, which distracts the reader from the content and creates a bad impression. Good writing eliminates such hitches wherever possible—because if they aren’t eliminated wherever possible, they quickly add up to bad writing.

Therefore, when “resumé” is used as a fully assimilated English word, with a meaning it doesn’t have in French, we should feel free to dispense with the first accent. The second accent, however, is still highly desirable for the purpose of distinguishing “resumé” from the verb “resume,” and more generally for the purpose of indicating that, unlike most words in English with a final -e, the final syllable is pronounced.

Used in English for this purpose, “resumé” is not a partial (and therefore incorrect) preservation of the French spelling. It is an ad hoc, unhistorical improvisation of the sort that has long been used in a few exceptional cases where historical spellings and normal spelling conventions yield results that are consistently felt as awkward even by practiced English-speakers.

Another instance of such unhistorical improvisation that is sometimes seen is the spelling “uncoördinated” (with a diaeresis over the second ‘o’). Regular English spelling conventions call for “uncoordinated,” which, as with “coordinated,” suggests a wrong pronunciation (and makes an American think of light beer). The usual device of a hyphen (as in “co-ordinated”) yields “unco-ordinated.” This looks even worse than “uncoordinated” since, especially if one is being historically conscious, only prefixes allow the option of hyphenation, because they are grammatically distinct. But unlike “co-,” “unco” is not a prefix. (As readers of Robert Burns know, it can stand alone as an adjective or adverb—but it’s still not a prefix.) “Unco-” in “uncoördinated” is, to be sure, a joining of two prefixes. But since combinations of two prefixes are somewhat unusual, and their separation from the main word by hyphens quite rare, “unco-,” when first seen, prompts the mind to try to interpret it as a single prefix, which leads to a dead end. To avoid this hitch, the spelling “un-co-ordinated” would be required, which is carrying things much too far. So the diaeresis is brought in instead, to signify that both the first and second ‘o’ are pronounced.

Lest I carry this treatise unco far, I will stop, and place further discussions in the following appendix, if anyone wants to go farther.


Miscellaneous matters

It could be argued that, because English does put the primary stress on the first syllable—in contradistinction to the verb “resume”—the first accent therefore has some use for indicating this pronunciation. I believe, however, that there is no real necessity for this. Subject to correction by specialists in English phonology, it seems to me that it’s natural for someone starting to read the word “resumé” to put the primary stress on the first syllable. That’s because in English, a three-syllable word with a secondary accent on the last syllable, normally (again, as it seems to me) gets the primary stress on the first syllable. Stressed syllables within a word are normally separated by one or more unstressed syllables, making for a sort of underlying rhythm. (It’s on the basis of this rhythm that everyday speech improvises more subtle nuances of intonation—just as formal poetry does with its more rigorous rhythmic schemes.) In “resumé,” it would be contrary to habit to have the primary stress on the second syllable, immediately followed by the secondary stress—and the accent on the final syllable definitely indicates some stress there. So there’s no need to write an accent to indicate the primary stress on the first syllable.

English-speakers (or at least, American-speakers) only rarely use the borrowed French word in its original, general sense, to mean “a brief summary” of whatever is being spoken of. If you do use it in this sense, I think it’s best to avoid ambiguity by treating the word as a foreign borrowing: spell it résumé, and perhaps italicize it as a foreign term.

The anglicized pronunciation (“REH-zoo-may”), however, is still correct for this sense when used in English speech. Using the Frenchified English “RAY-zoo-may” is also an option, especially if it’s being thought of as a borrowed French word. Like most English “French,” it’s really a half measure. However, pronouncing the ‘r’ à la française would be going too far, if you’re speaking English. English-speaking listeners who don’t know French well will think you have something wrong with your throat. Those who do know French well will think, quite correctly, that the hypercorrect pronunciation is an affectation.




Faut bien préciser (en parlant ou en √©crivant anglais) qu’il s’agit de l’histoire professionelle de quelqu’un, et non de la reprise de quelque chose. (En écrivant, il y a aussi une troisième possibilité—un précis de quelques faits quelconques.) Mais, en cherchant d’emploi aux États-Unis on parle anglais, n’est-ce-pas, non français. L’exactitude linguistic est un valeur a préserver à très peu près toujours, mais ça peut coûter trop chèr, même pour les puristes, s’il entraine des ennuies hors commun et ne répond (où, pis, ne répond qu’en façon confondant) à aucune nécessité fonctionelle si raffinée que ce soit. (Tant aux puristes. Pour les affectés, entendu, c’est une autre histoire.)

Taper les accents ne vient pas sans trouble aux doigts anglophones, les claviers anglais n’ayant pas ces clès. Il faut les taper néanmoins, en générale. Mais dans le cas du mot ‘résumé’, je crois, il ne vaut pas la peine de trébucher sur deux accents dans le même mot, ce qui multiplie l’ennuie et la distraction, puisqu’on sait (surtout si on est vrai puriste, non affecté) que l’aigu premier ne signifie, en la prononciation anglais, ce qu’il signifie en le français. Même en anglais, bien sûre, le tonique tombe sur la première syllabe, mais en anglais (où, au moins, en américain) on ne prononce le premier ‘é’ comme on fait le second: on ne dit pas ‘ray-zoo-may’, mais ‘reh-zoo-may’ (encore moins, comme en français, ‘chray-zoo-may’).

En plus, le mot, dans le sens de ‘histoire professionel’, n’est presque plus senti, en usage commun, comme emprunt étranger, et le fait historique de l’emprunt n’a plus d’importance, côté signification, même pour la nuance. En fait, dans l’usage commun, la signification du mot est changé depuis son emprunt: il n’a plus le sens général du ‘précis’, mais un signification beaucoup plus restreint, qui ne répond à aucune sens du mot en français. (Le français, pour signifier cette chose, ayant gardé la phrase latine ‘curriculum vitae’.)

Le fait que le mot a été emprunté du francais n’est important que pour la prononciation, et, en parlant anglais, où on dit ‘reh-zoo-may’, la prononciation française concèrne seulement l’ultime. L’aigu sur l’ultime est donc nécessaire (un ‘e’ final n’étant pas prononcé en anglais) pour distinguer entre le nom et le verbe ‘resume’ (‘reprendre’, en français), et suffisant pour indiquer qu’l s’agit du mot ordinaire dont le tonique tombe sur la première syllabe.

On pourrait bien, en puriste, souhaiter une indication explicite du tonique, et peut-être on pourrait imaginer des cas où il faudrait mieux garder deux aigus dans un mot emprunté du français. Mais dans le cas présent, puisque la seul signe disponible pour indiquer un accent tonique est utilisée immédiatement après, sous nécessité plus pressant, dans un autre sens, le puriste intelligent mettra fin à ses peines, en disant, ‘Ça suffit’. (Ce n’est pas un puriste qui revendiquerait la prononciation franglais ‘ray-zoo-may’, sans patrie et peu convénable aux gueules américains. Et ce n’est pas un sage qui insisterait, en parlant anglais, sur la vraie prononciation française: ‘chray-zoo-may’.)

Si on veut utiliser le mot, comme on fait parfois en l’anglais plus ou moins érudit, dans le sens générale qu’il a en français, on peut bien, en ce cas assez rare, mettre les deux accents, et peut-être méme mettre le mot en italique ou le prononcer, de façon franglais, ‘ray-zoo-may’ (mais pas ‘chray-zoo-may’), pour éviter des échos du sens plus commun.



E-mail: info[at]crystalresumes.com


All contents copyright © 2022, Dezhnev & Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Never go to sea with two chronometers.
Take one or three.

—nautical proverb