How Conde and Chamoiseau Use Language in Their Works - Essay Example

A comparative analysis of the use of French and other (local) languages in Condé’s Traversée de la Mangrove and Chamoiseau’s Chronique des sept misères. The highly distinguished writer Maryse Condé is perhaps best known for her contribution to the world of academia, after having lectured at many well-known universities across America and Europe before retiring from Colombia University in 2004. Her contribution to the literary domain is also outstanding, with many of her novels contributing towards issues of race and gender. Similarly, Chamoiseau is also a writer of great importance, having won the Prix Goncourt for his novel Texaco in 1992, which was then chosen as a New York Times book of the year. The writing style that Chamoiseau employs, offers in many cases, a sensitised depiction of his home country Martinique, its people and culture. Condé’s Traversée de la Mangrove and Chamoiseau’s Chronique des sept misères will be closely analysed in this essay in order to provide a comparative analysis of the use of French and other local languages in both novels. Firstly, the narrative technique of both novels will be analysed in order to determine how the French language is presented and the message that each author wishes to portray to the reader as a result. The presentation of local languages will also be considered so that insight can be gained into how each author wishes to represent their place of birth and its culture through linguistic technique. Finally, the use of myth and fantasy will be examined so that a clear form of usage can be defined, in order to decipher its function within the portrayal of the French language. By representing a collection of different opinions, all of which question each other’s motives, Condé provides a way of presenting collective accounts as a means of several possibilities and ways to write a novel. This free and somewhat disorderly structure may suggest that Condé wishes to counteract typical order and demands. An argument for this case can be put forward as Condé’s female characters speak in the first person. In Mira’s first account, the first person is employed from the beginning as she explains to the reader about times during her childhood when she spent time at the river. She informs the reader that, « Enfant, je descendais chaque fin d’après-midi à la Ravine et j’y restais des heures entières. »1 The use of the first person is important, out of all the men represented in the novel, it is only Loulou’s son, Joby who is « un garçonnet pâlot »2, a description, which is rather emasculating and Xantippe who Condé permits to speak in the first person. It is interesting to note on this point that during the classical period of ancient Greece, Xantippe was in fact a woman and wife to Socrates, a Greek philosopher renowned for his discoveries on Western philosophy. On this basis, it is rational to assume that Condé is feminising the French language, as the only two male characters who she gives ultimate liberty of expression to possess feminine features. Condé uses the French language to subvert the traditional role of the male gender and in doing so; she simultaneously subverts traditional male colonial discourse. Condé elaborates on this idea, by explaining to the reader why she has chosen to feminise the use of the French language in her novel. Sylvestre Ramsaran congratulates himself on having three children as he exclaimed that «Le morceau de fer marche bien! »3 Condé assigns a derogatory tone of French in this case, which highlights the author’s own thoughts on male chauvinism. Furthermore, Condé uses the French language in order to assert female power, hence weakening the male race as Mira points out that « Les femmes récitent leurs prières à la Sainte Vierge quand elles croisent mon chemin. Les hommes se rappellent leurs rêves de la nuit quand ils ont trempé leurs draps et ils ont honte. Alors, ils me bravent des yeux pour cacher leur désir. »4 In this respect, Mira asserts her authority as a woman, by suggesting that men are immature and unable to control their desires. The contrast in gender structures is very telling in terms of Condés contradictory and disorderly narrative structure. It is interesting that Condé states that « sur le cœur des Nègres la lumière de la bonté ne brille jamais. »5 It is quite possible that Condé refers directly to the male Negro race, thus suggesting that she wishes to oppress and revoke male discourse in her novel. Therefore, Condé uses the French language to put her own point of view across, which in this instance is a disapproval of Antillean values with regard to gender relations. The disorderly structure of the novel suggests that Condé wishes to counteract tradition and that she wishes to present a different way of approaching colonialism with the French language and how this is delegated among gender roles. This idea is best demonstrated through Cyrille, who is described as, « Conteur dont la réputation n’était plus à faire...Il imaginait sous les traits d’une Négresse aux dents de perle, riant nacrées entre ses lèvres charnues, couleur d’aubergine black beauty…qui déchaînait le feu dans les entrailles. »6 It is clear from the above quote that Condé deprives the male gender of the traditional story-telling role. As a result, the significance of the storyteller is transformed into the role of a ventriloquist, as the use of French in the above quote is manipulated into an anti-male type of language as Condé directly refers to the poem Black Beauty, by the Guadeloupian poet Guy Tirolen, which is a celebration of the beauty of the female African race. 7 This intertextual resonance, suggests, in a somewhat circular argument that Condé uses her knowledge of the French language and French literature to highlight recurring themes of gender structures through her use of language. For this reason, it can be argued that her illogical narrative structure is necessary in order to feminise and theatrically nuance the French language, so that each character is able to present their version of events to the reader in turn. In doing so, Condé legitimises the order in which the novel is arranged, as it is the job of the reader to understand the incomplete and often contradictory stories, in order to gain an individual understanding of the narrative. Arguably, Condé purposefully fails to provide enough consistent information about her protagonist Francis Sancher as the selection of accounts by local inhabitants fails to provide a unified voice, as social class and gender shape each opinion. There appears to be no authoritative narrative, therefore it is the reader’s duty to collect information and decipher its meaning. Therefore, Condé highlights her own personal thought by feminising the language, but she also proves to the reader that there are several ways of studying colonialism, which is shown in her narrative structure. Chamoiseau on the other hand presents the French language as an intimidating force, which is alienating for local inhabitants. Chamoiseau conforms to traditional colonial discourse, centered around male characters as Pipi, the main djobber, a job comprising of transporting vendors baskets, is presented by Chamoiseau as a symbol of hope and success because « Les partis politiques indépendantistes et autres grappes de nègres en petite maronne lui décernèrent des médailles. »8 Chamoiseau presents his protagonist as having gained fame, as it is mentioned that he is even in the evening news. However, Pipi’s inability to understand French alienates him and ironically, the characters who define Pipi as a hero and a paradigm of local culture eventually destroy his work and his ideas. When Césaire comes to visit Pipi the reader is informed that, « Voyant Aimé Césaire...Pipi devint ababa. Bégayant, transpirant, il ne comprit plus rien à ce qu’on lui demandait et se révéla incapable d’expliquer ses méthodes. »9 The presentation of Césaire in fictional form is a satire by Chamoiseau, as in this case it is quite clear that the fictional character of Césaire could not meet anyone more true to local culture and local language than Pipi. Language is a cultural barrier and it is clear that Pipi is unable to understand Césaire’s comments as he says «Hein? Quoi ? Kesse ti di misié limè ? (Que dis-tu ?) »10 In this respect Chamoiseau presents the French language as imposing, as Pipi looses the ability to communicate clearly, and as a result he reverts back to the Creole language. It can be argued therefore, that Chamoiseau uses a character that is emblematic of the male race and the French language, which is presented as problematic in order to portray communication difficulties within his novel, as a means of offering a critique on Césaire. In Praise of Creoleness Bernabé, Confiant and Chamoiseau reinforce this idea by reproaching him for having neglected certain aspects of Antillean culture on a linguistic and ethnic basis. They state that, “Negritude did not solve our aesthetic problems. At some point, it even might have worsened our identity instability by pointing at the most pertinent syndrome of our morbidities: self-withdrawal, mimetism, the natural perception of local things abandoned for the fascination of foreign things, etc., all forms of alienation. A violent paradoxical therapy, Negritude replaced the illusion of Europe by an African illusion.”11 It is reasonable to suggest therefore, that Chamoiseau considers that Césaire did not uphold local identity, as he simply seeked to replace it with a French one. In this respect, Césaire is presented as going back on promises made to the local culture, which is representative of Pipi’s loss of power, as he eventually gives up his gardening ideas to the educated elite. As a result, Chamoiseau uses language to show bitterness between the two cultures as Pipi explains that « Les nègres savants prirent les choses en main. Engrais. Pesticides. Fortifiants…Serres de plastique…Bientôt le jardin ressembla à autre chose. Les plants avaient noirci…Les fruits miraculés se racornissaient comme des cacas de lapin. »12 Ironically, the clear and logical expression from Césaire and his supporters are not transferred into the world of gardening. Chamoiseau uses this section in the novel to highlight the failings of Césaire and not only to show the degradation of language and local landscape but also the shortcomings of French nation who admittedly compose « une géographie imaginaire qui faisait de la France le centre du monde »13 according to critics. It is true to say that Chamoiseau agrees with this statement in his novel, which is shown through the forceful nature of French values and language in Martinique. It is quite clear that the French language and culture fails to win the respect of the locals, therefore a critique on the attitude of French culture is presented to the reader as a destructive and harmful outside force, which is representative of Pipi’s garden and its decline when the French take over. Overall, both authors offer a critique of the colonial period, but through different approaches. Chamoiseau represents the use of traditional and typical masculine language of the colonial period in a melancholic way, by showing the gradual decline of Pipi and his garden, which is a symbol for what Chamoiseau considers an error on the part of the French as he presents power and dominance as the main function of this European language. Condé on the other hand, gives the power of expression to her female characters. She distorts traditional narrative function in order to provoke questions about traditional Antillean gender structure and to provide a critique on the shortcomings of the colonial period and its representation, by suggesting though the order of her narrative structure that there are many ways of examining this period. Condé’s allusion to Antillean tradition has a huge influence on the use of local language. Walcott defines this through local pieces of art by stating that, “Antillean art is the restoration of our shattered histories, our shards of vocabulary, our archipelago becoming a synonym for pieces broken off from the original continent.”14 Walcott suggests in the above quote that local language can be regarded as a mixture of various traditions and characteristics and the geographical image of what he terms as an archipelago of islands, which are moving away from the continent and from each other suggests that the Antillean culture is not perfect and that discord exists. It is interesting in this case that in her article ‘Créolité without language?’15 Condé states that the writer has the right to use whatever linguistic strategy that is suitable. Therefore, it can be argued that Condé intends to present local language in an adaptable and improvised way to her readers, by presenting it in multiple forms. It is reasonable to assume then, that in Traversée de la Mangrove Condé presents the hybrid nature of the local community by stating that métissage is the main building block of Antillean culture. According to Emmanuel Pélagie, « C’est une erreur de croire qu’Africains et Antillais ont qui que ce soit en commun…Notre société est une société métisse…Je rejette le mot « créole »…Et pour parler à mes gens j’avais besoin d’un interprète…Nous ne pouvions pas communiquer. »16 It is quite clear in this case that Condé does not wish to exoticise the use of Creole as a language. She creates an image of the Creole language, which corresponds to the structure of her novel. It appears that she does not purely wish to attract local readership as Emmanuel Pélagie is used to voice the notion that the Creole language ought to represent the mosaic style of the Antillean culture, however, it has to be understandable so that others, anywhere in the world can communicate with the Creole language and culture. Hence, Condé takes an open and modern approach to the representation of local languages. However, traditional features are upheld by the author, as the way in which Condé sustains the mosaic nature of Antillean culture is through oral tradition, as this is the main way in which information is passed around the community. Information about Francis Sancher is described as, « Bientôt se mirent à circuler des informations venues d’une autre source, à savoir de Sylvaine, la femme d’Emile Etienne, qui répétait ou déformait des propos de son mari. »17 Condé demonstrates the way that this information is manipulated or misheard by the locals through the description of Sancher as Dinah describes his face a «clair, riche couleur de maïs bien rôti.»18Léocadie Timothée describes him as « un mulâtre foncé, robuste, les cheveux trop grisonnants pour son visage que ne marquait aucune ride. »19 Condé clearly suggests in this case that Sancher is an everyman as curiosity and ambiguity ensue. This idea is defined by Condé as Loulou states that « L’imagination populaire est ainsi faite. Elle vous change un homme. »20 Therefore, Condé intends her language to be contradictory as it creates paradoxes, certainly with regard to Sancher, Condé’s protagonist, thus a link can be made here with Walcott’s suggestion of broken pieces of land, as the language is very disparate and it has to be pieces together by the locals and the reader, as many questions remain. However, the open view that Condé takes towards the Creole language is contradicted by Chamoiseau in his novel Chronique des sept misères. Pipi wins the title of the king of the djobbers, the narrator explains that « Nous n’eûmes même pas la possibilité de l’approcher pour lui dire l’amour et le respect. »21 Pipi is seen as a hero, as he is the quickest to bring the yam down from the hills to the market. The image that Chamoiseau creates here shows deep-rooted tradition in Martinique and Pipi is an indicator of its success and productivity. However, the influx of French supermarkets introduced better quality products at lower prices and as a result, consumers were no longer interested in local produce and Pipi quickly loses his status as king of the djobbers. The end of the first part of the novel presents a lack of enthusiasm as the narrator states that, « Nous ne savions pas encore que pour lui, comme pour nous, l’étouffement allait suivre. »22 This deflated language, in comparison to earlier statements made in the first section of the novel, such as the above example, show the decline of Pipi and his culture, as it appears that the French supermarkets alienated the djobbers from their jobs and society as a result. This destruction of local culture is a warning by Chamoiseau, as Pipi is used as an extended metaphor according to Gosson23 to portray the negative effects of French capitalism on Martinican society. Chamoiseau depicts the market place in his novel as a diverse place, where many different cultures meet in order to sell their goods. Glissant states that, “The individual, the community, the land are inextricable in the process of creating history. Landscape is a character in this process. Its deepest meaning needs to be understood.”24 Chamoiseau certainly agrees with Glissant’s statement about landscape as the narrator in Chronique des sept misères pays special attention to the market place and how it is set up. The narrator explains that, « Il faut dire que la municipalité n’avait pas encore trace les choses à l’équerre : viandes, poisons et légumes se vendaient ensemble, au gré du petit bonheur. »25 The detailed description of the landscape can serve as a metaphor here, for Antillean culture and the hybrid mixture of races that it contains. The wide selection of produce available and the mixture of sellers and buyers is testament to this and so Chamoiseau creates a métissage of Antillean culture in this instance as it explained that at the market, « On venait s’acheter le manger du jour, mais surtout, s’aiguiser la langue sur disputes et paroles inutiles…annoncer les naissances et les morts…et…présenter ses maladies aux marchandes d’herbes médecine. »26 In this respect, Chamoiseau uses landscape to portray local lifestyle and local values and in highlighting these particularities, he is able to show how the French language and French cultures engulfs them. The locals take a sarcastic approach to this, as they sarcastically claim to be proud of becoming a department of France by declaring, «Département, Département! »27Chamoiseau confirms this false excitement, through his use of footnotes, as he refers to 19th March 1946 when Guadeloupe and Martinique were classified as French departments. Chamoiseau uses footnotes in this case to reinforce that local culture believe that they have a defined geographical zone and to clarify to French readership to what is being referred. Without the addition of these footnotes, Chamoiseau subtly suggests through the tone of the language used, that European readership would be unable to understand, which is exactly what local culture would have wanted. Furthermore, Chamoiseau combines specific geographical features with historical features as the narrator flippantly refers to George Robert, the admiral for the Caribbean during the Second World War, in a section entitled «Robert et Guerre. »28The mocking tone and lack of clarity from this title alone suggests that the locals in Chamoiseau’s novel intend not only for historical fact to be difficult to understand for French readership, but also it is noteworthy that the narrator states that life «devint plus aride qu’à l’époque de l’Amiral Robert.»29Therefore, it is obvious that the narrator suggests that France is an oppressive force within Martinique and by referring to Admiral Robert in this suggestion; it is possible that the narrator wishes to suggest that the oppression they are experiencing is a similar notion to the oppressive forces of Nazism. It can be deduced therefore, that Chamoiseau wishes to portray an ethnographic element to his novel, in the way that he uses language to define the opinions of the locals, thus suggesting that Martinique wishes to advocate independence and thus preserve its own personal and geographic specifics as well as local language. It is clear then, that Condé takes a very different view to Chamoiseau in this case, as her language is much more open, as she intends local culture to be understood by all readers. Arguably, she does not take a centripetal view of the Caribbean. The two different writing styles of the two novels confirm Condé’s idea of different ways of presenting opinions, as clearly, there are no set guidelines to presenting this period. A lack of guidelines and conformism is presented by Condé through Sancher, a stranger who is fascinating for the locals, as he does not conform to their way of life. Sancher is initially accused of being lazy and a vagabond, however Condé develops this critique of Sancher, as the locals continue to question and ponder on his profession because « Quand les gens, surprise et démangés par la curiosité, arrêtèrent la camionnette de Moïse pour lui demander ce qu’il faisait là, ils s’entendirent répondre que c’était écrivain. »30 Sancher the writer is not a stereotype of Antillean culture and as a result, Condé uses the French language to present him to the reader in a fantastical way. This idea is not only valid due to the fact that many women in Rivière au Sel see Sancher as a form of emancipation, an idea which is echoed by Fanon as he depicts the desires of a black woman to marry a white man by referring to Mayotte Capécia and Abdoulaye Sadji31. Fanon comments on this novel by referring to a mulatto woman, marrying a white civil servant, he states that « Qu’il se soit agi de Mayotte Capécia la Martiniquaise ou de Nini la Saint-Louisienne, le même processus s’est retrouvé. Processus bilatéral, tentative de recouvrement – par intériorisation- de valeurs originellement interdites. C’est parce que la négresse se sent inférieure qu’elle aspire à se faire admettre dans le monde blanc. »32 The idea of moving into a white world is presented in a fantastical way by Fanon and Condé is eager to state that Sancher is an incredible character, as he is rather different not only in appearance, but also in profession to the local community, something which is expressed as an exciting element by many local women. The act of writing opposes oral culture, which leads Sancher to be regarded by others as a mysterious character. This combination of reality and imagination is an attempt by Condé the complexity and opacity of the Rivière au Sel community, as many different layers of society exist. As a result, the act of writing is questioned, yet ironically, it is Sancher’s death that brings the community together, so that each individual story can be recorded and ordered into a collection. This portrays the Mangrove swamp in an understandable way as it also points out the gaps in the shortcomings of local society, thus offering a balanced evaluation of local culture. Chamoiseau on the other hand, does not offer a logical solution by combining the fantastic with reality in his novel. He creates interest around his main protagonist through the connotations of his name. Curtins suggests that Pipi’s full name is Pierre-Philomène33, which is reminiscent of Greek mythology as the word Philomène is akin to the legendary princess Philomèle, who was violated by her stepbrother and was reduced to silence, so that the truth would never surface. This analysis of Pipi’s name can be accurately applied to Chamoiseau’s novel, as it is true that Pipi’s language is mutilated due to the overpowering nature of the French language. However, Chamoiseau cleverly continues the notions of myths and mythology in his writing, as harmony merges with the fantastical, as the inexplicable can only be explained in a spiritual way. This idea determines Pipi’s destiny, as Afoukal, a character portrayed as a zombie slave explains to him that, « Tu descends du bateau, non dans un monde nouveau mais dans UNE AUTRE VIE…Il fallait vraiment renaître pour survivre. »34 It is clear that Afoukal is unable to offer material objects as a source of comfort for Pipi, however the memories of his culture and his people through the portrayal of myth and legend offer a new critique on society and the injection of myth into the narrative upholds oral tradition. The narrator explains that, « Cette façon de dire une époque se révélait plus efficace que les sombres exactitudes historiques dévoilées auparavant. »35 Pipi’s character can therefore be linked to the supernatural as he is linked to the present and the past, as his communication with Afoukal help to keep the memory of slavery alive and of course, they reassert non- Western values with regard to language in this case. As a result, Chamoiseau represents an illogical scenario, within a realistic setting, which cannot be explained to European readership, as the mythology that is referred to by Chamoiseau is specific to Pipi. It is fair to assume then, that Chamoiseau employs the use of magical realism as a way in which to distort local culture in order to suggest the folly of France in Martinique, as Chamoiseau manipulates language to suggest that a mutual understanding between the two cultures is unachievable. Therefore, unlike Condé, Chamoiseau does not intend his narrative to be understood, nor offer a mutual understanding of culture and language, something that is most definitely argued through his use of mythical concepts. Overall, it can be deduced from the above analysis that the two writers use language in a very different way, in order to justify their arguments. It is clear that Condé wises to move away from traditional colonial discourse, not only by feminising her language through the use of female accounts of what happened to Sancher. Also through the use of her wide knowledge of French literature, she employs secondary literature, such as using Guy Tirolen’s poem Black Beauty as a means of supporting her point about gender inequality with regard to colonial representation. However, Chamoiseau represents this notion in a very different way. French is portrayed as being alienating and overpowering, which is demonstrated by Pipi, who is rendered practically speechless within the male dominated world of French politics. Therefore, Chamoiseau uses narrative technique to show the bitter relationship between the French and the Creole language and hence the shortcomings of French policies and behaviour at this time. Condé’s use of Creole however, is quite different to Chamoiseau’s melancholic presentation of language barriers. She wishes to present it in an understandable way, by provoking her readers to piece the information together in order to comprehend her message. Chamoiseau on the other hand, takes a somewhat ethnocentric view on this point, as there is a clear consensus from the use of footnotes and flippant use of the French language by the narrator that local language and culture is incomprehensible for other nations. It is true that Condé contradicts this point by representing Sancher as a non-conformist to Guadeloupian culture, through his profession and physical appearance. The complexity of Condé’s protagonist reflects the notion of opacity and discord, which is also shown through her narrative structure. However, Condé does offer a solution to his presence at the end of the novel, thus proving once again that her novel is, in an indirect way intended to be understood with regard to local language and French. Chamoiseau however, presents his characters in an oppositional way to Condé, as the lack of clarity is not sufficiently explained in many cases, which is demonstrated by the use of mythology. It can be argued then, that Condé is correct in suggesting that there are many ways of representing language and the message that it brings, Chamoiseau takes a centripetal view of local language by advocating opacity as a means of discrediting the French language and ultimately suggesting that the two languages and culture are unable to merge. Despite Condé taking a different view to this, her message about gender and understanding is equally as important. Therefore, the representation of language has proven to be flexible in terms of messages, structure and tone with regard to colonial discourse within these two novels. Read More