Instructions: Question are based on the following text.

Source: http://languagemagazine.com/?page_id=124967

TEXT 

Dear Mayor Estrosi, Mayor Vivoni, Prime Minister

Manuel Valls, Former President Nicolas Sarkozy,

and other French officials who have supported

France’s burkini ban:

    My name is Amara Majeed, and I am a 19-yearold Muslim Sri Lankan American. I am a student at Brown University, studying cognitive neuroscience and public policy.

    When I look at the photo circulating of a woman in Nice being surrounded by armed police officers as she is coerced into removing her clothing, because French officials deemed the burkini to be inappropriate beach attire, I see infringement on a woman’s right to choose what she puts on her body by a group of white males. I see the scapegoating, ostracization, and criminalization of Muslims in the aftermath of the Nice terror attacks. I am a woman who wears the hijab, and I see an affront to the rights and civil liberties of women like me.

    Deputy Mayor of Nice, Christian Estrosi: You have stated that you support this ban on “inappropriate clothing” in the wake of the Nice terror attacks. Mayor Vivoni, you have described the burkini ban as a necessary measure to “protect the population.” Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, you have labeled the burkini as a symbol of extremism.

    Let me respond to all of you by saying this: any conflation of the burkini with terrorism is invalid, virulent, and discriminatory. Tell me, in what way does our way of dress pose a threat to France’s national security? In what way does the burkini propagate hateful, violent ideologies? How is it that our way of dress poses a national security threat, yet some wetsuits, which take on strikingly similar designs to the burkini, aren’t? While France’s highest administrative court has now overturned the ban, the damage has already been done — this attack on the Muslim way of dress only serves as fodder to the already existing rising anti-Muslim sentiment and stigmatization of Muslims in France. If this institutionalized Islamophobia and fearmongering is being perpetrated by French officials and authorities, I fear how the general public’s poor treatment of hijab-clad women may be exacerbated in the coming weeks. We’re all well aware that hate crimes and violence targeting Muslim women wearing the hijab is not a new phenomenon in France.

    As one burkini-clad woman who was forced to leave the beach states, “Because people who have nothing to do with my religion have killed, I no longer have the right to go to the beach.” In the eyes of many authority figures, our religious identity in and of itself is incriminating. Our way of dress is incriminating. Our sheer existence is incriminating.

    Many of you have called the hijab an emblem of oppression. In April, France’s Minister for Women’s Rights equated women who choose to wear the hijab with “Negroes who were in favor of slavery.” More recently, France’s prime minister stated that the burkini is a tool of “enslavement,” and former French President Sarkozy insinuated that hijabclad women are imprisoned.

    I am genuinely tired of individuals like you imposing your brand of colonial feminism on us and telling us that we are oppressed, that we have been indoctrinated, that this was not our choice, and that we need to be unshackled. Instead of continuing to pursue these offensive and failing attempts at liberating us, I implore you to liberate yourselves from this white savior complex and recognize that we don’t need your saving. The hijab does not oppress me. For me, the hijab is a symbol of feminism and freedom of expression — so who are you to invalidate my experiences, to invalidate a fundamental, inextricable aspect of my identity, and to label me as enslaved, as imprisoned, as oppressed? By depriving us of our rights to dress the way we want, by making public spaces inaccessible to us, by publicly humiliating us and coercing us to remove some of our clothing while we are trying to enjoy a day at the beach — you are oppressing us.

    My news feed has been saturated with people posting photos of a Muslim woman at a beach being forced to strip, captioned with outrage and vitriol towards this form of discrimination. While your support of our rights is appreciated, I ask that you refrain from doing a disservice to this individual by circulating this photo. It may not seem like you are violating a woman’s privacy and liberties by sharing a picture revealing her arms or shoulders, but it is incumbent upon us to understand that she did not freely choose to show those parts of her body in public. Even if the intent is to excoriate the burkini ban while circulating these photos, I implore you to not be complicit, whether directly or indirectly, in systems of oppression that are stripping women, literally, of their right to choose what they wear.

Yours truly,

Amara Majeed – a muslin woman

(Source: http://www.bustle.com/articles/180721-an-open-letter-to-french-officials-who-support-the-burkini-ban-from-a-muslim-wo-man)

From interactivity to passivity

    Observers have noted that the Internet is moving away from its original model of cooperative communication based on exchange, and tending towards the logic of a mass broadcasting media, resulting in a concentration of producers and the progressive disappearance of interactivity. This tendency towards passivity in the use of the new media can, we believe, be counterbalanced effectively in an approach to FLT which encourages cooperative, collaborative procedures, where teachers abandon traditional roles and act more as guides and mentors, exploring the new media themselves as learners and thus acting as role models for their learners. Case studies show that there is closer interaction between teacher and students when the new media are employed. Language learners who have experienced this kind of approach are most likely to transfer the skills acquired to their daily practice in the use of the new media in the mother tongue. And, above all, this experience should lead to the development of a “user culture”, implying appropriate behaviour, which respects other people as well as the diversity of their opinions.

(Available: http://iite.unesco.org/pics/publications/en/file.)

INSTRUCTIONS: Read the following text and answer question.

It has been estimated that some 60 percent of today’sworld population is multilingual. Both from a contemporary and a historical perspective, bilingualism or multilingualism is the norm rather than the exception. It is fair, then, to say that throughout history foreign language learning has always been an important practical concern. Whereas today English is the world’s most widely studied foreign language, five hundred years ago it was Latin, for it was the dominant language of education, commerce, religion, and government in the Western world. In the sixteenth century, however, French, Italian, and English gained in importance as a result of political changes in Europe, and Latin gradually became displaced as a language of spoken and written communication.

As the status of Latin diminished from that of a living language to that of an “occasional” subject in the school curriculum, the study of Latin took on a different function. The study of classical Latin (the Latin in which the classical works of Virgil, Ovid, and Cicero were written) and an analysis of its grammar and rhetoric became the model for foreign language study from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. Children entering “grammar school” in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries in England were initially given a rigorous introduction to Latin grammar, which was taught through rote learning of grammar rules, study of declensions and conjugations, translation, and practice in writing sample sentences, sometimes with the use of parallel bilingual texts and dialogue (Kelly 1969; Howatt 1984). Once basic proficiency was established, students were introduced to the advanced study of grammar and rhetoric. School learning must have been a deadening experience for children, for lapses in knowledge were often met with brutal punishment. There were occasional attempts to promote alternative approaches to education; Roger Ascham and Montaigne in the sixteenth century and Comenius and John Locke in the seventeenth century, for example, had made specific proposals for curriculum reform and for changes in the way Latin was taught (Kelly 1969; Howatt 1984), but since Latin (and, to a lesser extent, Greek) had for so long been regarded as the classical and therefore most ideal form of language, it was not surprising that ideas about the role of language study in the curriculum reflected the long-established status of Latin.

The decline of Latin also brought with it a new justification for teaching Latin. Latin was said to develop intellectual abilities, and the study of Latin grammar became an end in itself.

Source: RICHARDS, J.C.; RODGERS, T. S. Approaches

and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1999 (1st edition 1986). pp. 1-2.

Text 6 to answer question.

History and Debate of Internet Censorship

Censorship refers to any action taken by a society to control access to ideas and information. Throughout history, many different types of societies, including democracies, have used censorship in various ways. The issue is increasingly important due to the rapid development of new communication technology. As innovators continue to create new ways for people to share information, many people are now arguing over the issue of censorship. 

Pros and Cons of the Internet Censorship Debate

For the proponents of censorship, restricting the access of information is something that can provide benefits to society. By censoring pornography on the internet, children are less likely to encounter it. By censoring certain types of images and videos, society can prevent offensive or vulgar material from offending those that it targets. For example, some would argue that society should censor material that is insulting to a particular religion in order to maintain societal harmony. In this way, censorship is viewed as a way to protect society as a whole or certain segments of society from material that is seen as offensive or damaging. 

Some argue that censorship is necessary to preserve national security. Without using any kind of censorship, they argue that it is impossible to maintain the secrecy of information necessary for protecting the nation. For this purpose, censorship protects a state's military or security secrets from its enemies who can use that information against the state. 

Those who are against censorship argue that the practice limits the freedoms of speech, the press and expression and that these limitations are ultimately a detriment to society. By preventing free access to information, it is argued that society is fostering ignorance in its citizens. Through this ignorance, citizens are more easily controlled by special interest groups, and groups that are able to take power are able to use censorship to maintain themselves. Additionally, they argue that censorship limits a society's ability to advance in its understanding of the world. 

Another main issue for those who are against censorship is a history of censorship abuse. Those who argue against censorship can point to a number of examples of dictators who used censorship to create flattering yet untrue images of themselves for the purpose of maintaining control over a society. They argue that people should control the government instead of the government controlling its people.

(SOURCE: http://www.debate.org/internet-censorship/ accessed on 19/02/16 at 3:10 pm). 

TEXT III

Use of language in diplomacy

What language should one use when speaking to diplomats, or what language should diplomats use? Or, to be more precise, what language/languages should a (young) diplomat try to learn to be more successful in his profession? 

The term "language in diplomacy" obviously can be interpreted in several ways. First, as tongue ("mother" tongue or an acquired one), the speech "used by one nation, tribe, or other similar large group of people"; in this sense we can say, for example, that French used to be the predominant diplomatic language in the first half of the 20th century. Second, as a special way of expressing the subtle needs of the diplomatic profession; in this way it can be said, for example, that the delegate of such-andsuch a country spoke of the given subject in totally nondiplomatic language. Also, the term can refer to the particular form, style, manner or tone of expression; such as the minister formulated his conditions in unusually strong language. It may mean as well the verbal or non-verbal expression of thoughts or feelings: sending the gunships is a language that everybody understands.

All of these meanings - and probably several others - can be utilised in both oral and written practice. In any of these senses, the use of language in diplomacy is of major importance, since language is not a simple tool, vehicle for transmission of thoughts, or instrument of communication, but very often the very essence of the diplomatic vocation, and that has been so from the early beginnings of our profession. That is why from early times the first envoys of the Egyptian pharaohs, Roman legates, mediaeval Dubrovnik consuls, etc., had to be educated and trained people, well-spoken and polyglots.

Let us first look into different aspects of diplomatic language in its basic meaning - that of a tongue. Obviously, the first problem to solve is finding a common tongue. Diplomats only exceptionally find themselves in the situation to be able to communicate in one language, common to all participants. This may be done between, for example, Germans and Austrians, or Portuguese and Brazilians, or representatives of different Arab countries, or British and Americans, etc. Not only are such occasions rare, but very often there is a serious difference between the same language used in one country and another. 

There are several ways to overcome the problem of communication between people who speak different mother tongues. None of these ways is ideal. One solution, obviously, is that one of the interlocutors speaks the language of the other. Problems may arise: the knowledge of the language may not be adequate, one side is making a concession and the other has an immediate and significant advantage, there are possible political implications, it may be difficult to apply in multilateral diplomacy, etc. A second possibility is that both sides use a third, neutral, language. A potential problem may be that neither side possesses full linguistic knowledge and control, leading to possible bad misunderstandings. Nevertheless, this method is frequently applied in international practice because of its political advantages. A third formula, using interpreters, is also very widely used, particularly in multilateral diplomacy or for negotiations at a very high political level - not only for reasons of equity, but because politicians and statesmen often do not speak foreign languages. This method also has disadvantages: it is time consuming, costly, and sometimes inadequate or straightforwardly incorrect. […] Finally, there is the possibility of using one international synthetic, artificial language, such as Esperanto; this solution would have many advantages, but unfortunately is not likely to be implemented soon, mostly because of the opposition of factors that dominate in the international political - and therefore also cultural and linguistic - scene.

So, which language is the diplomatic one? The answer is not simple at all […].

Words are bricks from which sentences are made. Each sentence should be a wound-up thought. If one wants to be clear, and particularly when using a language which he does not master perfectly, it is better to use short, simple sentences. On the contrary, if one wishes to camouflage his thoughts or even not say anything specific, it can be well achieved by using a more complicated style, complex sentences, digressions, interrupting one's own flow of thought and introducing new topics. One may leave the impression of being a little confused, but the basic purpose of withholding the real answer can be accomplished.

(adapted from http://www.diplomacy.edu/books/language_and_ diplomacy/texts/pdf/nick.PDF)