Unsurprisingly, I neglected to learn the vocabulary for anything else besides pains au chocolat. While this wouldn’t be a problem if I lived alone in Paris, where my activities primarily consist of ordering bread and asking people at museums if students get in free, as I live with a family, I occasionally have to communicate with people on subjects besides what I ate that day. This is why I need Marcus.
Marcus, the grandson of my host mother, comes over every Friday, and I am obsessed with him. He is energetic. He is hilarious. He is extremely cute. He is ten months old, and is teaching me French.
Martine, my host mother, and I gather around Marcus, who is seated on a blanket depicting various animals.
“Ça?” he asks, pointing at a fish.
“That’s a fish,” I respond. “Un poisson.”
“Ça?”
“Also a fish.”
“Ça?”
“That’s a lion. Un lion.”
“Ça?”
“That’s a … um …” I have no idea what a whale is. I look at Martine.
“Ça c’est une baleine,” she responds. I make a mental note. Baleine = whale.
So far I have learned 50 or so words this way. Tail. Sleeve. Every animal imaginable. There is no baby-talk, which is just the way I like it. “That’s a painting, Marcus,” Martine will say. “It depicts a Chinese village next to the ocean. You are looking very cute today. What are you doing? Please do not scrape that against the wall; it will make me very angry. Thank you very much for stopping what you were doing.”
I’m convinced that this treatment of children is one of the reasons that, in French literature class, my peers give oral presentations referencing Kant, Hegel, and Descartes rather than talking about silly things like “themes.” Rather than reveling over the appearance of a metaphor, as lit majors do so frequently (“I really love how Yeats uses the image of eyes to depict the concept of his memory – did you all get that?”), they pepper their presentations with references to Hegel, sensualist philosophy, and the mock-heroic like my friends drop obscure band names.
It’s a different way of learning about words – more holistic, rather than excavatory – that I first experienced in a sophomore year French lit class taught by a visiting French professor, who seemed puzzled by our methods. “Don’t you see how he uses the rhythm of the sentences to mirror the movement of the carriage across the town’s cobblestone streets? It’s the highest expression of the sensualists! It’s positively John Locke!” We stopped midway through our rapture over Flaubert’s magnificent simile between Charles Bovary and a cow, ashamed.
For someone so purportedly interested in words, I am embarrassed to admit how new these ideas seemed to me. In fact, listening to a recent broadcast of Malcolm Gladwell (www.thisamericanlife.org), I was surprised at how little I think about their exact meanings. While working at The Washington Post, Gladwell and a coworker had a contest to see how many times they could work the phrase “perverse and often baffling” into their copy. When his coworker used it to describe mollusks, his editor noted that mollusks, while potentially perverse, were either baffling or they were not; they did not oscillate between baffling and not baffling. It struck me – often I just write words because they sound good, and not for any actual meaning behind them. Maybe it’s the musician in me. Then again, shouldn’t I be better at poetry?
In any event, as my interactions with Marcus indicate, maybe I should just stick to learning individual words, before I start putting them together. A few weeks ago, alone in the apartment, I heard a key in the lock. In walked a woman I had never seen. “Hello,” she said, “I am la guardienne.” The guardian? Of what? I felt like I was in a J.R.R.Tolkien book. Turns out, it means the housekeeper.
I feel like it will be a while before I’m discussing Kant.
No comments:
Post a Comment