Skip to main content

Model A-level translation task: immigration is good for Europe

Here is a piece you could do with your advanced level students. The subject is very topical and bears hammering home!! You could do the translation in either direction, but if you do it from French make sure you remove the alternative suggestions.

Immigration is good for Europe

English version

According to most economists immigration is a good thing for Europe.

This can essentially be explained by a very simple reason: without immigration the working population will fall by 100 million people over the coming 50 years, whilst the population as a whole is rising and ageing. Europe will therefore have to be open to immigration and diversity in society. Nor can we ask immigrants to leave their religion, culture and identity at the border.

Better still, the arrival of new cultures can contribute to the creativity which Europe needs, today more than ever. However, it is difficult to get across such a message when we are faced with a populist narrative in parts of the media and by some political parties which presents immigration as a threat.

Joschka Fischer, former German minister of foreign affairs, is therefore calling leaders in Europe, not only in the political sphere, but also from the world of culture, media and education, to rise up against the false prophets. He believes that the leaders of the main parties, by leaning towards populism and making it more attractive in the eyes of citizens, are not fulfilling their mission as leaders.


One after another, European leaders have stated that the multicultural society has failed. In contrast, Fischer notes simply that in Europe diversity is a reality and the continent cannot turn a blind eye to it if it wishes to continue to play a role in a world confronted with the powerful competition from China, south-east Asia, India and Brazil.

French version

Selon la plupart des économistes l'immigration est une bonne chose pour l'Europe.

Cela peut s’expliquer essentiellement par une raison très simple: sans immigration, la population active diminuera/chutera de cent millions de personnes dans les cinquante prochaines années, tandis que la population totale augmente et vieillit. L’Europe devra donc s’ouvrir (il faudra donc que l’Europe s’ouvre) à l’immigration et à la diversité dans la société. On ne peut pas non plus demander aux immigrants de déposer/laisser leur religion, leur culture ou leur identité à la frontière.

Mieux encore, l’arrivée de nouvelles cultures peut contribuer à la créativité dont l’Europe a besoin, aujourd’hui plus que jamais. Mais il est difficile de faire passer/communiquer/transmettre un tel message face au discours populiste présenté dans certains médias et par certains partis politiques qui fait de l’immigration une menace (qui présente l’immigration comme une menace).

Joschka Fischer, ancien ministre allemand des affaires étrangères, appelle donc les dirigeants en Europe, non seulement dans la sphère politique, mais (aussi) dans le monde de la culture, des médias et de l’enseignement/l’éducation, à s’insurger contre les faux prophètes. Il estime/considère que les leaders des principaux partis, en s’inclinant devant le populisme et en le rendant ainsi plus attrayant aux yeux des citoyens, ne remplissent pas leur mission de dirigeants.

L’un après l’autre, les dirigeants européens ont déclaré que la société multiculturelle a échoué. Par contre, Fischer constate tout simplement qu’en Europe, la diversité est une réalité et que le continent ne peut (pas) s’y aveugler s'il veut continuer à jouer un rôle dans un monde confronté à la puissante concurrence de la Chine, de l’Asie du Sud-Est, de l’Inde et du Brésil.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,