Les aires anglophones américaines

A classmate believes that “the English-speaking Americas” means the United States and Canada. In English, correct this in four sentences: name one continental Caribbean country, one island state, one British Overseas Territory, and say what links them.

1. 01Open by naming what is missing

   Do not begin with a contradiction — begin with a fact. “The English-speaking Americas reach far beyond the United States and Canada. Two of them are not islands at all: Belize, in Central America, and Guyana, on the northern coast of South America.” Naming the counter-examples first does the correcting for you.

2. 02Add an island state, with a date

   One precise date is worth three adjectives. “Among the island states, Jamaica became independent from the United Kingdom on 6 August 1962, and Trinidad and Tobago a few weeks later, on 31 August.” Use “became independent from”, never “became independent of the England”.

3. 03Add a territory, and mark the difference in status

   Make the status contrast explicit: “Not every English-speaking island is a sovereign state. The Cayman Islands and Bermuda are British Overseas Territories: they govern themselves in most matters, but they are not independent.” The pair “self-government” / “independence” is exactly what the examiner listens for.

4. 04Close on what links them

   Finish with the institution, not with an opinion: “Most of them belong to the Caribbean Community, CARICOM, founded on 4 July 1973 by the Treaty of Chaguaramas, whose secretariat is in Georgetown, Guyana. But CARICOM is wider than the English language: Haiti and Suriname are full members too.”

Résultat : La correction tient sans polémique : on nomme deux pays continentaux (Belize, Guyana), un État insulaire daté (Jamaïque, 6 août 1962), un territoire britannique (îles Caïmans, Bermudes) avec le couple « self-government / independence », et on referme sur la CARICOM en signalant qu’elle déborde l’anglophonie. Quatre phrases, quatre faits vérifiables, aucune généralité.

You are asked to introduce reggae to a class in English, in about ten sentences, as a cultural fact and not as a mood. Say where it comes from, what it grew out of, what it does socially, and why UNESCO listed it.

1. 01Anchor it in a place and a lineage

   Start with geography and descent, not with adjectives: “Reggae comes from Jamaica, and it did not appear out of nowhere. It grew out of earlier Jamaican styles: mento, then ska, which slowed down into rocksteady and finally became reggae in the late 1960s.” The verb chain (“grew out of”, “slowed down into”, “became”) does the historical work.

2. 02State the social function, in the sources’ own terms

   Borrow the institution’s wording rather than inventing one: “UNESCO describes its basic social functions as a vehicle for social commentary, a cathartic practice and a means of praising God.” Then make it concrete: “In other words, reggae songs argue about poverty, justice and faith — they are public speech, not only dance music.”

3. 03Give the recognition and its date

   One date, correctly framed: “In 2018, reggae music of Jamaica was inscribed on UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.” Note the preposition — “inscribed ON a list”, not “in”.

4. 04Close on circulation, which is the axis itself

   Bring it back to the programme’s question: “From a small island, reggae travelled to Britain with Caribbean migrants and then to the rest of the world, where it shaped punk, hip hop and pop. That is what the syllabus calls cultural permeability — and it did not travel in one direction only.”

Résultat : La présentation tient parce qu’elle enchaîne une filiation (mento, ska, rocksteady, reggae), une fonction sociale citée d’après l’UNESCO, une date de reconnaissance exacte (2018) et un mouvement de circulation qui répond à la question de l’axe. Aucun adjectif d’ambiance, aucune généralité sur « la joie de vivre caribéenne » : quatre faits et un raisonnement.

In English, write a paragraph of about twelve sentences answering the syllabus question “Puerto Rico: the 51st state?”. Set out the facts, present at least two positions fairly, and close without deciding for Puerto Ricans.

1. 01Open with the legal fact, not with the debate

   Neutral ground first: “Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States. Its inhabitants have been US citizens since the Jones-Shafroth Act of 2 March 1917, and the island has had its own constitution since 25 July 1952.” Three verifiable statements before any argument is safer than an opening opinion.

2. 02Name what is missing, precisely

   Be exact rather than dramatic: “However, residents of the island do not vote in the general presidential election, the island has no senator, and its Resident Commissioner sits in the House of Representatives without a vote on the floor.” Precision here is what separates analysis from complaint.

3. 03Give each camp its strongest argument

   Balance with a hinge: “Supporters of statehood argue that citizens who serve in the armed forces and pay federal payroll taxes should have full representation. Supporters of the current Commonwealth reply that it preserves a distinct Spanish-speaking identity and a measure of fiscal autonomy, whereas those who favour independence argue that only sovereignty ends the asymmetry altogether.” Note “whereas” — the connector the B1+ descriptors ask for.

4. 04Close on the mechanism, not on a verdict

   End where the facts end: “Several plebiscites have been held, in 2012, 2017 and 2020, but they are non-binding: under the Constitution, only Congress can change the status of a territory. The question therefore remains open — and it is for Puerto Ricans, not for me, to answer it.”

Résultat : Le paragraphe tient sans prendre parti : faits juridiques datés, énoncé exact de ce qui manque, un argument fort par camp articulé avec “whereas”, puis clôture sur le mécanisme constitutionnel. Le refus explicite de trancher n’est pas une esquive — c’est la position que le programme demande sur un sujet politique vivant.

A first draft reads: “Vancouver is a Canadian city. It is famous for cinema. Seattle is an American city. It is famous for technology.” Rewrite it in English as a genuine cross-comparison of about six sentences.

1. 01Find the shared ground first

   A comparison needs a common measure before it can show a difference: “Vancouver and Seattle sit on the same inland sea, the Salish Sea, whose name was formally approved on both sides of the border between 2009 and 2010.” One sentence now holds both cities — the draft never did.

2. 02Name the common human foundation

   Keep the two together while adding depth: “Both stand on Coast Salish land — Vancouver on the unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations, Seattle on Duwamish land, and it even carries the name of Chief Si’ahl.” The em-less structure “Both stand on …, X on …, Y on …” is the workhorse of comparison.

3. 03Introduce the difference with a hinge, not a full stop

   Replace the two isolated sentences with one hinged sentence: “Their economies, however, pull in different directions: Vancouver is known as Hollywood North, the third-largest film and television production centre in North America, whereas Seattle is a software capital — Amazon is headquartered there, and Microsoft in nearby Redmond.” The precision about Redmond is what makes the sentence trustworthy.

4. 04Close on something that binds them again

   Return to the shared axis so the comparison is a loop, not a list: “Yet both face the same pressure — housing that fewer and fewer residents can afford — and both are linked by a single rail corridor, the Amtrak Cascades line, which runs from Vancouver through Seattle and Portland down to Eugene.”

Résultat : Le brouillon de quatre phrases parallèles devient une comparaison réelle : un socle commun nommé et daté, un fondement humain, une charnière (“whereas”) qui oppose les deux économies avec la précision sur Redmond, et une clôture qui rattache les deux villes par une tension et par un couloir de circulation. Chaque phrase contient les deux villes — c’est le test à s’appliquer.

A visiting student asks you, in English, what Notting Hill Carnival is and why it exists. Mediate: make the reference explicit rather than translating a French sentence, in about eight sentences.

1. 01Give the fact before the explanation

   Anchor first: “Notting Hill Carnival is a street carnival held in west London every August. It is one of the largest street festivals in Europe.” A mediator states the thing, then unfolds it — the opposite of a definition that keeps the listener waiting.

2. 02Make the missing context explicit

   This is the mediation move itself: “To understand why it exists, you need to know that after 1948 large numbers of people came to Britain from the Caribbean — the ships and the years are remembered through the name of one of them, the Empire Windrush, which docked at Tilbury on 22 June 1948 with just over a thousand passengers.” You are supplying what the listener could not have known.

3. 03Paraphrase rather than translate the cultural term

   Do not import a word untranslated and leave it there: “The carnival grew out of Trinidadian carnival traditions — that is, a public procession with costumes, steel bands and calypso, in which people also comment on the events of the year through song.” The phrase “that is” is the paraphrase hinge the syllabus asks for.

4. 04Close by handing the meaning over

   End on why it matters to the person asking, not on your own opinion: “So it is not only a party. It is a way of making a Caribbean presence visible in a British city — which is why people often describe it as a celebration of what Caribbean migrants have brought to the country.”

Résultat : La médiation réussit parce qu’elle ne traduit pas : elle pose le fait, fournit le contexte manquant avec une date vérifiable (22 juin 1948, Tilbury), paraphrase la référence culturelle au lieu de la laisser opaque (« that is, a public procession with… »), puis remet le sens à l’interlocuteur. Aucune phrase ne commence par « in French we say » — c’est exactement ce que le programme entend par rendre une référence « plus claire et plus explicite pour autrui ».