"You did well, Anakin…"

I know this blog has suffered some delay due to the exams, but I've been slowly filling the gaps for a week. Unfortunately, I'm going on holyday tomorrow, so I won't be able to post any message on this blog until 15 July.

By the way, we got the results of our exams. Here's what the "official" (i.e. a simple black and white A4-sheet) document states:
– Histoire du Moyen Âge : 16/20
– Introduction générale à la philosophie : 18/20
– Sciences religieuses : 14/20
– Stylistique et maîtrise de la langue anglaise : 18/20
– Stylistique et maîtrise de la langue néerlandaise : 15/20
– Linguistique anglaise : 17/20
– Linguistique néerlandaise : 15/20
– Histoire des littératures et des civilisations anglophones : 18/20
– Histoire des littératures et des civilisations néerlandophones : 18/20
– Analyse de textes anglophones : 17/20
– Analyse de textes néerlandophones : 17/20
Résultat : la Plus Grande Distinction
Moyenne : 16,64/20

Yeah! With the greatest fulfilment! That's SO rare to get that! Needless to say that I'm extremely happy!

My Dutch Proficiency Exam (1): Written Part

Today's exam was about writing skills, spelling, listening and reading comprehension. Ms Laurence Mettewie was in charge of it (even if she didn't taught us the course) and was helped by Ms Ann-Lien Lievens.

We started with the listening comprehension, a test that I feared. I had good reasons for being afraid: at the end of the first semester, our Dutch Proficiency teacher, Evie Tops, gave us the opportunity to take last year's listening comprehension exam. I got 6/8 for a Flemish fragment from Het journaal (Flemish news), but I only got 2/10 for an extract from the Dutch NOS-journaal. I had to pay extra attention to it. That is the reason why I had been watching Dutch programmes throughout the whole second semester. I admit that I wasn't so fond of the Dutch accent (even though I can spoof it), but I forced myself and then I think I got used to it.

But this time would be different. We had 2 Dutch and 1 Flemish fragments. What a kerfuffle! We listened to it three times, and it wasn't really difficult to understand the message, but as to the subtleties of that long train of speech… The Dutch speak too fast. And I don't say that because I live in a region where we usually speak slower (as is the case of South Limburg, I think), but because they really do! THEY SPEAK TOO FAST! And that is the reason why I didn't know which answer I had to choose in that evil MCQ… We were provided with options that were just as good as any other… All the words were said in the report… "Which one(s) must I pick?" I thought. It was painful for me, but I had to choose at random. I had one or two chances out of five to pick the good answer…

I just hope that this listening comprehension won't ruin my overal exam: if, for any of the parts of the exam, we had a mark lower than 8/20, we had that mark for the whole Proficiency exam. A big threat, I can assure you… Especially if you think that you did quite well the rest of the exam… I really hope I got 9/20 at least, so that I didn't mess up with that exam. I would be really upset.

Yeah, the rest of the exam was pretty easy:

– the vocabulary test (2000+ words to study, and we were asked on two dozens of them, two of which weren't even in our books!…)
– the reading comprehension wasn't that tough
– the spelling test was tricky but I think I have 85% of good answers
– finally, the writing exam was made up of two main questions — writing an email on basis of the response to that email (silly) and writing a short essay on superstitions.

It was 5.30 p.m. when I got out of the lecture room. I had a little chat with some friends, then I got back to my digs. I had stuff to study for tomorrow's oral exam.

My "Analysis of English Texts" Exam

Today the "Analyse de textes anglophones I" exam took place. Due a change of venue, we had to go to a lecture room in the Law Faculty. Some of us came in completely wet, due to a shower — it was pouring outside; I had arrived just before it started. The second-year studens were taking their exams at the same time, in the same lecture room, so that we were sit in such a way that we didn't have a fellow student in front of us.

The exam started at 9.00 a.m. when we all got the exam sheets. Our professor, Dirk Delabastita was helped by Ruth. Since this was an open-book exam, we had the syllabus, the theory, and the two books we had to read (i.e. Dracula by Bram Stoker) at our disposal.

The exam consisted in a reletively short list of questions, but we had to give fairly lengthy answers.

First question: recognizing fragments (i.e. give the title and the author), and situate the extract in the story. Thanks to the lay out and the lettertype of the fragments, it was quite (too) easy to find out where they came from, then to contextualize them briefly. I only fear I wrote too much.

Second question: we had to link these fragments to 6 different concepts that we came across in the theory. It wasn't so clear at first, but I think I managed to do it correctly, with a few sentences to explain my choice.

Third question: on basis of an extract from The Shawl by Cynthia Ozick, we had to underline the lines where the technique of external or internal narration was used, and then briefly explain why we did so and where there is place for doubt.

Fourth question: writing an essay comparing It Happened So Quickly by Enid Blyton and The Story-Teller by Saki. Those two stories weren't that difficult; just finding what was relevant to compare in those two stories forced me to write a draft of my answer to the question — which had to have the shape of an essay.

All that took me roughly three hours, plus another 30 minutes to re-read carefully and to add here and there several words and to correct a few spelling mistakes. (And I realized later that I wrote "biaised" instead of "biased". Fool me.) And notice that we didn't get a single question about Dracula…

I was quite exhausted when I gave my exam to Ruth. And I was hungry. When I got out of the lecture room, I had a little talk with some friends, and then I walked to my dad's car. We drove back to the Carmel (where I live) to take some stuff (e.g. clothes, books) home. In fact, I had to go back to Aubel because I had to go and vote tomorrow. At least, I had a proper meal tonight! (Instead of an fryed sausage with a small quantity of rice…) I talked a lot with my parents and my brother, about the exams and many facts in the news, mostly everything that had something to do with the federal elections.

My Dutch Grammar Exam…

Today, big day for Dutch Grammar, or Taalkunde, as we call it. It was to take place at 2 pm. We entered the lecture room where the exam sheets had been carefully laid, so that there were at least two seats between each student. Mrs Mettewie (who gives Taalkunde was the only teacher present, Mrs Hendrix being giving class in Maastricht at the same time.

The first part consisted of a bunch of MCQs with options ranging from really simple to really difficult, but I think I managed to find 70% of good answers. Then, we had to define or explain concepts from the course, which is basically a summary of the book De 11 hoofdstukken van de zin, written by Hans Bennis (see picture on the left). This book, as you can see it on the left, has got the most terrible cover ever printed… Maybe Bennis painted it. Painting and Grammar are two separate disciplins, aren't they? Anyway, the book is crappy, full of things that seem useless for us students, who just want to be able to communicate in the (Dutch in the present case) language we learn, not studying concepts that we'll eventually forget. (I already have.)

Anyway.

The second part was about testing our knowledge of the real grammar, e.g. use of modal verbs, etc. Sometimes, it was really difficult to chose the good nuance among the options, or to determinate if a given sentence was grammatically correct.

Now, it's behind my back. I can now work on Analyse de textes anglais I.

To Be Continued =>>>

My Religious Sciences Exam…

Normally, I should have taken the Religious Sciences exam (an oral one in front of Father Jean-Pierre Laurent, whose picture stands on the left), but I haven't. The reason is that throughout the year, we could assemble a "dossier" with essays about an analysis of some biblical text or obscure writing. It was said that it was very difficult to pass for this dossier, but I managed to get 14/20. What a relief!

It means that I didn't have to take the oral exam, since the students who got more than 12/20 for their dossiers were free to take the exam or not. I chose for the first option, because I wanted to have as much time as possible to prepare for my Dutch Grammar exam, on 4 June.

I'm glad I didn't have to study the course, because it was really badly lectured: he was speaking at ludicrous speed and, even though I'm able to transcribe quite quickly, I couldn't get the whole point of what he was saying. I had to type it — if not, it would have been a right kerfuffle to study my lecture notes… Here's an extract (in French, because it's one of the three courses we have to attend in the common programme):

Dans le texte majeur Problèmes de linguistique générale, Emile Benviniste aborde un tournant dans la linguistique. Dans l’extrait, il parle du système des signes dans une langue. Il parle de la sémiotique pour distinguer le fait que la langue est avant tout composée de si-gnes.
« Qui dit “sémiotique” dit “intra-linguistique”. Être distinctif, être significatif, c’est la même chose » → Ce qui fait le signe est ce qui le distingue d’un autre (e.g. lampe – rampe : il y a une unité distinctive reprenant ces deux différents phonèmes pour repérer des mots de sens différent. Les signes sont composés de phonèmes qui servent à différencier des mots → Distinctif = significatif.
3 CONSEQUENCES de ce principe :
1. « À aucun moment, en sémiotique, on ne s’occupe de la relation du signe avec les choses dénotées, ni des RAPPORTS ENTRE LA LANGUE ET LE MONDE » → Quand on fait de l’intra-linguistique, on ne s’occupe pas du rapport entre la langue et le monde, de la relation du signe et des choses.
2. « Le signe a toujours et seulement une valeur générique et conceptuelle » → On parle abstraitement, conceptuellement. « Il [le signe] n’admet donc pas de si-gnifié particulier ou occasionnel ; tout ce qui est individuel est ex-clu. »
3. « Les oppositions sémiotiques sont de type binaire » → On trouve toujours de la binarité (e.g. voir si quelque chose est présent ou non, comme masculin – féminin, sin-gulier – pluriel…).
⇒ Conséquence du travail sémiotique sur la langue : « Tout ce qui précède a trait à la structure ou aux relations du signe. Mais qu’en est-il de la phrase ? Qu’en est-il de la fonction communicative de la langue ? Après tout, c’est ainsi que nous communiquons, par des phrases, même tronquées, embryonnai-res, incomplètes, mais toujours par des phrases. C’est ici, dans notre ana-lyse, un point crucial.» → La phrase est un grand signe → On peut l’analyser de ma-nière binaire. Mais quand on regarde une phrase, on n’est plus dans la sémiotique.
« Le signe et la phrase sont deux mondes distincts et ils appellent des descriptions distinctes. Nous instaurons dans la langue une division fonda-mentale, toute différente de celle que Saussure a tentée entre langue et parole. Il nous semble qu’on doit tracer à travers la langue entière une ligne qui départage deux espèces et deux domaines du sens et de la forme. » → Deux manières d’être pour une langue : sémiotique et sémantique.
Pour SAUSSURE, il existe une distinction entre la langue et la parole : la LANGUE est un système de signes, un système abstrait et social : la PAROLE est la réalisation individuelle de la langue, on passe de l’abstrait au concret. De la sorte, Saussure ne fait pas de différence entre sémiotique et sémantique.
« Nous n’avons pu trouver de meilleurs [termes de “sémiotique” et “séman-tique”] pour définir les deux modalités fondamentales de la fonction lin-guistique, celle de signifier, pour la sémiotique, celle de communiquer, pour la sémantique. » → Sémiotique = signes ; Sémantique = voir comment communiquer
« La notion de sémantique nous introduit au domaine de la langue en em-ploi et en action ; nous voyons cette fois dans la langue et sa fonction de médiatrice entre l’homme et l’homme, entre l’homme et le monde, entre l’esprit et les choses, transmettant l’information. » → On agit sur quelqu’un d’autre en parlant, on est un médiateur agissant.
« L’expression sémantique par excellence est la phrase » → L’intenté, c’est ce que le locuteur veut dire, l’actualisation linguistique de sa pensée. « La sémantique ré-sulte d’une activité du locuteur qui met en action la langue ». → Mobiliser : quand on fait un discours, on mobilise les éléments de la langue pour la mettre à son service personnel et agir sur le monde, advenir comme sujet, agir.
« Le signe sémiotique existe en soi, fonde la réalité de la langue ; mais il ne comporte pas d’applications particulières ; la phrase, expression du sémantique, n’est que particulière. » Quand on utilise la langue, on est relié aux cho-ses hors de la langue grâce à celle-ci. La situation est différente à chaque fois, le locuteur est unique. Importance de l’acte d’énonciation de la langue.

Well, if the way of saying it is SO important to him, why did he talk for 20 minutes about useless gibberish, instead of merely telling us: You have to be careful when you write something. OK. I don't understand those kind of teachers…

My Dutch Literature Exam…

Today, it was high time to take the Dutch Literature exam. It was an oral one, and I was among the firsts to take it. I had put on my black suit with a purple tie (it's weird, I know) and brought my summaries in an elegant suitcase, so as to re-read the stuff once more while waiting. I chatted a little with some friends, and then it was my turn.

I was given a questionaire by Mrs Leijnse and I had to prepare it during 20 minutes, while another student was being tested. I had a question about Het Wilhelmus, then about Mariken van Nieumeghen en Beatrijs, then some obscure sonnet from Jan van der Noot.

Then I had to enter Mrs Leijnse's office. I told her everything I knew about the subjects I had to discuss. I found it pretty difficult to explain what I had in my mind. Maybe because I'm more used to writing and talking in English… I was more worried about how I was saying it rather than what I was saying. Maybe I wasn't really focussed. Mrs Leijnse also asked questions linked to what I was saying. It also disturbed me, especially when I didn't know what to say… It was — I think — the first time that I didn't manage to (at least) invent something. I absolutely don't know what will be my marks… It won't be very much, maybe 13 or 14 at most. All what I'm saying is just that I came out of the office with a bad feeling about this.

Later, in a street, as I was heading for the Station to catch my bus, a ******* pigeon found it funny to great me with shit, just on the left shoulder, that is to say on my jacket!! Crap! I told you I had a bad feeling about this…

It reminded me of this thing by Les Nuls:



Faisez gaffe aux pigeons. — C'était un conseil de l'Opération Pigeons Bourrés.

I know, it's silly. It always is. What would be life without silliness?

My Philosophy Exam…

After a whole week studying definitions and roughly a hundred pages filled with philosophical stuff, the exam period started. Today, it opened with what I consider the biggest and toughest exam among all others, namely Introduction à la philosophie générale.

Since I had worked very hard for the course, I was pretty confident about the exam. There was an oral and a written part. The oral exam was to take place at 8.30, and the written one at 2 pm.

I arrived at 7.50, just to be on the safe side. Several classmates talked about the difficulties they had had to study the course; soon, it was time for me to meet the professor, révérend-père Etienne Ganty. I entered the classroom quietly. Without a word, the professor (a man with a combover coming from the right side of his head – which is rare) pointed a small box with yellow pieces of paper in it. I guessed I should pick one of them. I took one with "3" on it. I took a questionaire with more than a dozen of questions and some scrap paper to write my rough draft. I had to develop this: "What distinguishes the men from all other beings, according to Aristotle?" It was not so difficult. I wrote evrything I knew on the subject in order.

Meanwhile, two other students were tested by Pr. Ganty. It wasn't looking very fine for them… Was I going to be destroyed, too?

The time had come: I came and sit in front of the Combover. I tried not to pay attention to it – otherwise I would have started laughing for several minutes or so… So, I talked about the question, introducing the subject, making links, etc. While I was speaking, he was writing several words on a sheet of paper. When I was done with Aristotle, he asked me two questions: one about Kant and his imperatives, plus the so-called "effort moteur volontaire". He didn't interrupt me to say I was saying bullshits; besides, at the end he said: "Très bien". All this gives me a good feeling about this.

In the afternoon – it means that I went back to my student's room to change clothes, because a suit is nice but warm – I went back to university to take the written part. It was pretty easy, actually. But it was maybe because I knew the stuff very well (surely I had to, after one whole week of studying!).

And now, I can forget everything. Oh no, it's already done! I pressed the delete button in my memory, and everything linking to this course was (hopefully) dragged away in the flushing power of oblivion. (Yeah I know, when I try to make comparaisons, it sucks.)

What we had to study was boring philosophy. Of course, there's greater boredom than that. Father Ganty could have given us a lecture on Heidegger. There's something I found on his page on Wikipedia:

Philosophers are divided in their opinion of Heidegger: some regard him as the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century, while others view his writing as bombastic nonsense. [!!!!!] Nonetheless, his work has exercised a deep influence on philosophy, theology and the humanities, being key to the development of existentialism, hermeneutics, deconstruction, postmodernism, and Continental philosophy in general. [Comment: What the heck is that?] Heidegger's thought directly informs the works of major philosophers such as Karl Jaspers, Leo Strauss, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jean-Paul Sartre, Emmanuel Levinas, Hannah Arendt, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida. [Comment: A bunch of people who could have done something better of their lives than talking gibberish.]
Heidegger infamously supported National Socialism. [Comment: What a prick!!] This has provoked fierce debate among and between supporters and detractors: some see it as a personal folly largely irrelevant to his philosophy, while others think it reveals flaws inherent in his thought.

As we say in French: On l'a échappée belle !" And there's worse than what I put up there: scroll down on the article and be amazed by things you won't understand a single word of!!!

I'm the advocate of another kind of philosophy: that of the Internet users. It's simple, you can discuss other people's ideas, react by all sorts of means, from the simple e-mail to the video response. Blogs are great, too: you can show the entire world (and not just a small group of "philosophers" who chose the most unintelligible words so that people like you and I don't get access to their "knowledge" they think beter than ours) your own philosophy. As a result, my blog is a kind of textbook about me. Silly, I know.

As I was looking for videos about Star Wars, I stubbled upon this girl and her lovely video. Vous m'en direz des nouvelles ! As embedding was disabled for this video, I suggest you just click here in order to watch it. Have fun! And think about the message!