Back to the… past (for a change) – Part II: Results

On 27 June we had the opportunity to take the train to go to Ypres for a bike excursion organised by Prof Mettewie, Mrs Lievens and Mr Van Mensel. Most of us took the train in Namur and we arrived some three hours later in Ypres. We visited the In Flanders Fields museum, which focuses on the different origins of soldiers who fought during the First World War. Later we took a bike and visited several places such as graveyards, riding along canals. We were back in Namur For more details (and pictures) about this excursion, I refer you to the unofficial germanistes blog, germanamur.skyrock.com.

On 28 June we were "kindly invited" to go to the faculty to get our exam results. Just like a year ago (time flies!) the L4 room was crowded with students and parents — let alone the teachers. First the names of the first year students who had passed: out of the 45 students that had taken the exams, only 13 of them had passed — which is not a surprise: same rate as last year. Then the three deparment heads gave the names of those who woudn't have to resit exams in August. Fortunately I was amongst them. Here is my full results:

Formation générale
Critique historique : 15
Initiation à une troisième langue étrangère moderne
Stylistique et maîtrise de la langue allemande I : 17
Approches linguistiques
Stylistique et maîtrise de la langue anglaise II : 14
Stylistique et maîtrise de la langue néerlandaise II : 15
Linguistique anglaise II : 18
Lingisitique néerlandaise II : 16
Approches littéraires
Histoire des littératures et des civilisations anglophones II : 16
Histoire des littératures et des civilisations néerlandophones II : 18
Analyse de textes littéraires néerlandophones II : 18
Formation générale à caractère philologique
Linguistique générale (en anglais et en néerlandais) : 15
Théorie littéraire : 16
Résultat : Grande Distinction
Moyenne : 16,18/20
Les crédits correspondant aux activités d'apprentissage de programme de cette année d'étude sont octroyés par le jury.

That's it. I was sure I wouldn't get the greatest fulfilment: it's really difficult to get four times 18/20. Next year it'll be totally unthinkable to get the greatest fulfilment: you need to have an average of 17…

After getting my marks I stayed on the fifth floor to talk with fellow students. Later in the day I went with some friends to a pub in order to have a drink. After that, we went to Mellet, where Melissa had organised a party to raise money for her Erasmus stay in Leuven.

Join me tomorrow for the account on my stay in Westende!

Back to the… past (for a change) – Part 0: preview

Oh, come on! It's been weeks that I haven't posted anything on this endless blog and I thought I'd read some words of support and encouragement when I'd come back… Well, once again I was too naive: I received just one comment. Same thing for my two other blogs (germanamur.skyrock and the outrageous one). Please send me some feedback: it's always nice to hear from you!

Now, after this "coup de gueule", let's rejoice because I've got a lot to tell you about what happened between the previous post and today's. I'll divide the events into three episodes (you know I love trilogies, and as was hinted in the heading): first I'll tell you about my trip to Barcelona (Spain), then I'll have a word about 28 July, when we all got the results for our exams, and finally I'll account on my stay at the seaside (more precisely in Westende). I think I've quite a lot to write about all that, but fortunately I've a lot of time to spend on that! I LOOOOOVE HOLIDAYYYYYYYYS!!!

Impressions on my exams: second and last part

As I promised, here follows the rest of my glimpse on my January exams.

My third exam was Grammaire normative néerlandaise, that is to say an exam on the whole book De regels van het Nederlands that we had been working on for a year and a half. This exam took place on Saturday 12 January, on the really same day as the first year students. (In fact, since I was in charge of establishing the timetables for the exams, I thought it would be more convenient for Mrs Hendrix to come just once for both years. Moreover, it was most suitable for us as to the sequence and spacing of of exams.) Second-year students were asked to enter the lecture room in the first place — one of the few advantages of being older — and then the first-year students. Once everyone was seated, we could stard. First, there was a series of fill-in questions that were quite easy, even if I had second thoughts about it after the exam. Second, twenty MCQs, some of which were written in a sadistic manner. I was confident about 75% of the answers, though. After the exam, while I was discussing my answers with fellow students, I realized that I had made big mistakes, but not too much. On the whole, I thought I would get 15.

As a special treat, Mrs Hendrix told me via e-mail that I got 16/20 for this exam. Quite rejoicing!

Two days and a half later (or three, for some people who had chosen to take the exam on Wednesday), it was time to go and see Mrs Leijnse to be tested orally on the course Histoire de la littérature néerlandaise II. Like in June, I was wearing my black suit, with a black shirt and a black tie. Just two students preceeded me that day, but there was already a ten-minute delay… Anyway, the moment finally came when I received three sheets with a question each of them. I went to the English literature seminar in order to write down the outline of the answer I would give once I would be in front of her. Normally, I should have had just 20 minutes to prepare that, but since Anne-Sophie (who was just before me) was apparently talking and talking, in the end I got more than 25 minutes — which allowed me to write detailed answers, and even to get bored because I didn't know what to write.

Mrs Leijnse eventually came to ask me to go to her office. I sat down and I started answering my questions:

1. [On the basis of a fragment from the epistolary novel Julia by Reijnvis Feith] Who wrote this text? What are the features? To which kind of writings does this belong?
   
2. [On the basis of a sheet with three poems by Van Schaick] Who wrote those poems? Who influenced him? What are the features of his style and the genre of poetry he wrote? What does it tell us about colonialism?
   
3. [On the basis of a poem by Guido Gezelle] Who wrote this poem? What are the characteristics of this poem? // Make a short survey of the "taalkwestie" in Belgium at the beginning of the 19th century.
   

I answered all the questions, making parallels with the other works I knew, their characteristics, the stories, the historical events, and so on. On the whole, I thought I did that exam very well. In fact, I had a better feeling about it than last year: when I took the exam, I was totally exhausted due to the fact that I had been studying philosophy for a week, and that after that I hadn't slept much, resulting in a poor pronunciation… But still, my answers were good, for I got 18 that time. And I also got 18 this time.

The last exam was a written one. It was to last for 5 hours! In fact, it was a twofold exam, the first part being a one-hour closed book exam on Charles Barber's book The History of the English language (very interesting by the way) which we were assigned to read and understand thouroughly in order to answer relatively short questions about it. (We had received a sheet with a list of questions, some of which would be asked at the exam, in order to have guidelines in our reading.) The second part was a four-hour open book exam on Pr. Vandelanotte's course notes about clause complex vs. clause simplex, STR (speech or thought representation, his area of expertise and PhD thesis subject – or I should say: "free indirect speech or thought representation"), and verbal processes.

I had to study the course in less than three days, which was quite a kerfuffle. Understanding the theory about chapters 1 and 3 was quite easy, since I had already go the idea behind the theory during the lectures. But as to chapter 2, I have to admit that I had hardly understood anything when Pr. Vandelanotte discussed it in class. At that time, I was more concerned about the fact that one can be so fascinated by such an abstract matter… But I guess it must be like that for any academic study. (You tell me, Professor.)

I worked very hard on that chapter and I managed to get the point of the four false assumptions about STR, even though I had difficulty finding good criteria to make the difference between free indirect speech (FIST) and distancing indirect speech (DIST). Basically, it had something to do with the degree of intervention of the narrator and the use of pronouns, but I didn't know how I'd explain that on my exam sheets… But since it was an open-book exam, I felt a little bit more comfortable and confident.

The exam took place and the first part was really easy: I had read the book two times in detail, making notes and studying them. After that, we had one hour for lunch (a good sandwich filled with a thick layer of "filet américain" is the best way to feed me in such circumstances). After that, we started what appeared to me to be the most difficult exam of my life. It would be too long to tell everything in detail, so I give you now just a couple of impressions. The first question was outrageously more simple than I thought: there were many clauses simplex (hence no need for analysis) and the few in the category "clause complex" were not as complicated as in the syllabus, except for one that was outrageously difficult, with a lot of subordinated clauses and everything. I read the second question, but my brain sent me a signal like those "ERROR 404" messages… I moved on to the last question. I filled boxes with the appropriate verbal processes and participants plus circumstances (if any) quite quickly, then I wrote a short text about the conclusions I could draw from such an analysis of verbal processes. That done, I had about two hours left to answer the second question, consisting in making the difference between types of reported speech in two given excerpts. However, I can't tell you a lot, for it's like a giant black hole in my memory. On the moment, I managed to fetch several arguments in the syllabus in favour of my analysis, but I don't know how I managed to do it right…

I was quite disappointed after my exam: I felt that my answers weren't really good and lacked precision… Nevertheless, I got 18 out of 20 for this exam. And I don't know how such a thing is possible. I'm looking forward to seeing my exam!



In conclusion, these two weeks (and a half) of exams was really exhausting, but my efforts were rewarded. Let's hope I can still work like that in June!

"The Force is strong with you, young Skywalker. But you aren't a Jedi yet." (Darth Vader, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Today we got our results for the January exams, and as it is customary for me to reveal them once and for all (it's more economical than repeating them all the time), here they are:

• Linguistique anglaise II………………………………………………………………… 18
• Histoire des littératures et des civilisations anglophones II…………….. 16
• Histoire des littératures et des civilisations néerlandophones II……… 18

Note that I'm still waiting for another two marks (Dutch normative grammar and a German test).

This means that I got rid of three courses. There are no less than 8 other courses to take an exam for at the end of the year. That'll be a right kerfuffle.

Now some comments about those exams, as I promised three weeks ago. Today I deal with the first two, and the other three will be discussed tomorrow.

First of all, we had to take a kind of intermediate test in German, consisting of a conversation with our teacher, Mr Bertrand. During the test, we had to provide good forms of declined adjectives, plural of nouns, their genders, forms of verbs, etc. We also had to answer basic questions and tell something about a topic discussed in the workbook. All this was supposed to take just 20 minutes, just like a regular oral exam, but Mr Bertrand was so enthousiastic about talking with me that I talked with him during 35 minutes more or less.

The following exam, Histoire des littératures et des civilisations anglophones was to take place on 8 January, that's to say three days later. (Exceptionally, our German test had to take place on 4 January or 21 January due to schedule problems.) Before I started studying my course notes, during the two weeks of "holiday", I had already leart and worked on the paraphrases that we came across with Pr. Delabastita. It took me a considerable amount of time to type everything, but in that way I had already made a first approach to the fragments. So I read, re-read, re-re-read the course notes: that's my way of studying. At the same time, I made an outline of the authors and their works, plus their dates of birth and death. After three day's study, I started becoming crazy: I wanted to stop studying, but I couldn't: I felt the urge to study, even if I couldn't assimilate more.

That's maybe why I appeared in front of Pr. Delabastita in a less relaxed state than usual. He asked me: "How are you Simon?" and I answered: "Of course I am", because what I heard was: "Are you Simon?". I admit I have some audition problems when I'm anxious. I picked one of the many exam sheets and I prepared my answers in the nearby classroom. My questions were:

1. Identify this fragment and discuss it. [Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman, beginning of chapter 55.]
   
2. What are the origins, characteristics, most important authors, etc. of the gothic genre.
   

So when Benjamin, who preceeded me, had finished his exam, it was my turn to be judged. So I talked about the fragment, situating it, talking about the book, about metafiction, etc. Pr. Delabastita asked me a couple of questions to make my answers more precise or to reframe them — as usual. Then we moved on to the second question. I talked about The Castle of Otranto, Anna Radcliff's The Monk, Dickens, the Brontë sisters, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Dracula. But at that moment, I felt that my answers were not as satisfying as what I'm used to: I lacked precision, curiously. At the end, he asked me which link there was between Jane Austen and the gothic novel. I had absolutely no idea of such a thing: probably he had told it as a footnote during the class, but the fact was that I didn't remember. (Note that's the first time I couldn't find an answer, even a hypothesis.) This wouldn't affect my marks seriously, but I was sure I wouldn't get 18 like last year. Nevertheless, I was quite confident about a 15 or a 16, and the results prove I was right.

Tomorrow, I'll talk about Dutch normative grammar, Dutch history and literature, and English linguistics.



A rejoicing announcement: the Star Wars exhibition will come to Tour & Taxis, in Brussels, between 16 February and 1 June 2008. This exciting exhibition was first held in London, then in other famous places such as New York (Brooklin), Lisbon and Paris. I certainly will go and see it — and that will be the third time: I first saw it in London in 2001, then in Paris in 2005. Fortunately, the layout and the artifacts from the saga were quite different in both exhibitions, and we can expect it will again be the case in Brussels. Anyway, I envoy seeing those splendid costumes and miniature spacecraft and other silly things that only Star Wars freaks would worship.

May the Force be with you!

Today's Uncyclopedia featured article: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Cloverfield

After a two-weeks exam session, it's now time for me to write a little bit more on this blog. Being on "holiday" for the next week will allow me to surf the Internet a little bit more than usual, watching crappy videos on YouTube, but also reading articles on UNCYCLOPEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I discovered this website about one week ago, and since then, I've made incredible discoveries. Basically, it's the un-Wikipedia, the corrupted version of it, without any single piece of reliable information. … Or maybe it is actually reliable. No one knows actually… Anyway, my point is to tell you that henceforth (I like that word), I shall be featuring at least one Uncyclopedia article in every blog entry I post here. (Because I don't think it'd be appropriate to do that on germ@namur…)

So, since today is 18 January 2008, I had to write a few words about this Internet phenomenon (I mean as for the advertising campaign based on speculations) nicknamed Cloverfield. But what can I say more about it? I haven't seen the film (obviously). Maybe you can read the Uncyclopedia article about it.

If you read other articles, you'll notice not only that most of them criticize Jesusland (that is to say the United States), but also that they feature so-called Oscarwildeizsms. What I like most about Uncyclopedia are the twisted pictures. Wanna see Mr Bean when he was a toddler? Click here. He's got some uncanny resemblance with the Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero. I'm sure Bruno will confirm.

Today's featured article is devoted to chavs. (YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!) I came up with this idea today, during the break between the two parts of the English grammar exam, watching through the window and peeking at dozens of young teenagers smoking and spitting on the pavement, and having a typical outfit and behaviour. But let's go back to chavs, now. As I'm too lazy to invent a proper definition, I just quote this, from the Wikipedia entry:

Chav, also Charv/Charver and Chavette (pronounced /ʧæv/, with 'ch' as in chair) are mainly derogatory slang terms in the United Kingdom for a subcultural stereotype fixated on fashions such as imitation gold, poorly made jewellery and fake designer clothing (often Burberry), combined with elements of working class British street fashion. The term appeared in mainstream dictionaries in 2005.^[1][2]

There are regional variations; in North East England (particularly in the Sunderland and Newcastle upon Tyne areas) the variant charv or charver/charva is most commonly used and has been used since the early 1990s, while in the south east chav and chavette are the usual forms. What is unusual is that the vowel in charver is ɑ: (as in 'far') and the mainstream UK equivalent uses the æ (as in 'cat') vowel in chav which goes against the usual North-South (a:/æ) vowel distinction.^[3]

The defining features of the chav clothing is the Burberry pattern (notably a now-discontinued baseball cap) and from a variety of other casual and sportswear brands. Tracksuits, hoodies, track suit bottoms and baseball caps are particularly associated with this stereotype. Response to the term has ranged from amusement to criticism that it is a new manifestation of classism.^[4] The term has also been associated with juvenile delinquency, the "ASBO Generation", "Hoodie culture", and "Yob culture".

So, it must look like this:


And his car, the Chavrolet:


Basically, it's what we call "Ronny" in Wallonia, the female counterpart being a "Ronnette". The Ronny is to be distinguished from the barakî, who is older, fatter and often poorer. In France, a Ronny is a Jacky (and his female is a Jackette) or a "racaille", and in Flanders they apparently call them Johnny and Marina.

But what do they say about them in the Uncyclopedia entry? A few witty quote, first:

"The Chav is proof that evolution has gone wrong. Unfortunately, it is also proof that survival of the fittest is comlpetely wrong. If I was right about that, none of them would make it past 20."
— Charles Darwin

"Amazing creatures! They rival the chimpanzee with their use of simple tools and basic language!"
— Jane Goodall

And the Un-definition:

Chavvus Blingus) is a 'species' closely related to the American Wigger (Homo Phobius) or Gangsta (Homo Blingius), the Scottish Ned or Gadgie (Homo Gadgness) the Australian Bogan (Homo Boganis), the Irish Scanger (Homo Retardus), the Finnish Pissis (Homo Pissisus), the Russian Gopnik (Homo Gopnikitus), the Romanian Cocalar (Homo Cockalarus), and the Singaporean Ah Beng (Homo Chankeus) all of whom being distantly related off-shoots of the human race (Homo Burberey capius). The French word for chav is "racaille" or "caillera" (whereas the worldwide term is generally 'Prick').

Here are some of the lines that made me roll on the floor:

The chav has become far too common, for they breed like filthy, filthy rabbits. Not enough people have been firing fireworks at them in the street lately, and so they have begun to grow out of control. Hated by a good portion of humanity,(the other portion just enjoys making money out of them), these creatures are easily distinguishable; they tend to gather in groups in towns, particularly shopping precincts; they talk some kind of bastard dialect of their own devising, the most important words being ‘innit and nar’.

Somehow the female side of the species decides to follow these 'Hard Gangsta's' around and constantly help spread around various STI's, mostly Syphilis, AIDS, Herpes & Chlomedia. This behavious is used to keep the 'Gangsta Number' (population) of the male chavs at bay. Despite this, the chav population is still on the increase.

Helpful Chav to English Translations (Click here to see a handy guide to chav speech)

One of them, King Michael, won £9 million thanks to the lottery… I'm gonna stop here: I think it was fun enough for today. Or maybe just watch this ad:



I don't think that the Lego Group thought that there could be ambiguity…

"I come back to you now, at the turn of the tide" (Gandalf the White, The Two Towers)

Yep, I've come back from holiday. I'm slowly recovering from two weeks without the Internet, so don't expect me to write a lot in this blog for the next week. Of course, I'll give you a summary of my stay in Westende and I'll tell you about my trips on my bicycle (roughly 450 km, that is to say three times as much as last summer!). Besides, I still have to tell you about my exams, even if it is possible for you to read my results below.

Watch this little gem (from the Monty Python's Holy Grail)

My Dutch Proficiency Exam (2): Oral Part

My oral exam was to take place at 4 p.m., but I took the bus at 3 o'clock, because I don't trust the T.E.C. (Transports en commun, i.e. the Walloon bus system). I had a talk with some friends who were waiting for their turn, but also with those who had just seen today's juges: Ms Evie Tops (our Proficiency teacher, who by the way wrote a PhD about the different ways of pronouncing the sound "r" in Flanders) and Mr Luk Van Mensel (who gave us pronunciation practise during the second term).

Basically, we had to be able to talk about issues discussed in the syllabus, e.g. the media in Flanders and in the Netherlands. It wasn't difficult.

The exam was pretty easy. I entered the classroom at 4 o'clock (sharp) and they made me comfortable. They asked me a couple of questions about my portfolio (a dossier we all had to made up, consisting of newsarticles, etc. and the account of things that we had done in order to be more familiar with the Dutch language outside the classroom; I had a 200+ pages portfolio, due to the Internet articles and so on). I talked about Belgian politics and stadsdichters (a kind op poet laureate for a big city such as Antwerp), too. I talked about a lot of things, but I can't remember precisely.

At the end of the exam, they told me it was good (except for a few grammatical mistakes which will disappear in the long term) and I just have to practise in order to correct my pronunciation (word stress level).