Hover a line for its translation; hover a word for its meaning. Tap 🔊 to hear it.
Generate a brand-new dialog on any topic, using this lesson's 0 vocab words — plus any words you add below.
Sign in to generate dialogues. It needs a pass — the first ten lessons of every course are free either way.
Repairing a misunderstanding in a second language
This lesson is about a problem specific to operating in a language you do not fully control, and it is worth naming because it will happen to you and the instinct is wrong. What happened to Alex is the standard mechanism. He made a narrow criticism — the trains — and lacked the hedging to keep it narrow, so it landed as a general one. In your own language you would have signalled the scope automatically: a tone, a qualifier, a quick 'mind you', an 'in fairness'. In a second language those are the first things to go, because they are the least essential to being understood and the most essential to being understood *correctly*. The result is that learners routinely sound blunter, more sweeping and more confident than they intend — and the people hearing them have no way to know that. The wrong instinct is to apologise and retreat, which is what Alex proposes in line 8: never mention it again. Laurent's correction is the useful part of the lesson. Dropping a subject leaves the misreading in place, and in a friendship it quietly becomes a fact about you. Going back to it — 'reviens dessus, mais avec le bon ton' — lets you say the narrow thing you actually meant, which is both more honest and more interesting than the apology. The phrases that do this work are worth memorising as blocks, because assembling them under pressure is how you make it worse: 'je me suis mal exprimé' I put that badly; 'ce n'est pas ce que je voulais dire' that's not what I meant; 'ne te méprends pas' don't get me wrong; 'je parlais de X, pas de Y' I was talking about X, not Y; 'je nuance' let me qualify that. Notice that none of them is an apology for the opinion — they are corrections of scope, which is what was actually wrong. One cultural note that cuts against a common assumption. Francophone conversation, in France and Belgium especially, tolerates and enjoys disagreement at a level that surprises people from more consensus-minded cultures — argument is a form of attention. What is not tolerated is the sweeping dismissal of somebody's country, city or football club, especially from a guest, and especially when it sounds offhand. The distinction is between 'vos trains sont épouvantables, pourquoi ?' which is an invitation, and 'ce pays n'a aucun avantage' which is a verdict. Alex meant the first and produced the second, which is the whole lesson.