Enjeux et formes de la communication

In English, explain Braj Kachru’s three-circle model to someone who has never heard of it. Name each circle, give two countries for each, say what the model actually measures, and end with one limitation of the model.

1. 01Name the model and its author

   Open by anchoring the reference: « In 1985, the linguist Braj Kachru described the spread of English as three concentric circles. The model does not rank speakers by ability: it describes the STATUS English has in a given country. » Naming the author and the date is what turns a vague memory into a usable reference.

2. 02Walk the circles from the inside out

   Go in order, always with examples: « The inner circle covers countries where English is a first language, such as the United Kingdom and the United States. The outer circle covers countries where English arrived with colonisation and remains an official second language, such as India and Nigeria. The expanding circle covers countries where English is taught as a foreign language, such as France and Brazil. »

3. 03Say where the weight now lies

   Add the point that makes the model interesting: « What is striking is that the expanding circle is by far the largest. Most conversations in English today take place between two people for whom it is not a first language, which is why researchers speak of English as a lingua franca. »

4. 04Close on one honest limitation

   Finish with a reservation rather than a summary: « The main limitation is that the borders have become blurred. Millions of people in India speak English at home, and many families in London do not. A model built on countries struggles to describe individual speakers. » This kind of qualification is exactly what a B2 descriptor calls for.

Résultat : La réponse attendue nomme l’auteur et l’année (Kachru, 1985), donne les trois cercles DANS L’ORDRE avec deux pays chacun, précise que le modèle décrit un statut et non un niveau, ajoute le déplacement du centre de gravité vers le cercle en expansion (l’anglais langue franche), et se termine par une limite réelle du modèle. L’anglais reste correct et sans calque : « English is a first language », pas « English is a language mother ».

You are given the closing passage of the speech Winston Churchill delivered to the House of Commons on 4 June 1940, as recorded in Hansard. In English, analyse it: set the scene, identify the dominant appeal, name two devices, and say what each device does.

1. 01Set the scene before touching the text

   Anchor the five questions first: « Churchill spoke to the House of Commons on 4 June 1940, as the evacuation of Dunkirk was ending. He was addressing MPs, but he knew the country would read him. He had to admit a military disaster and, in the same breath, make surrender unthinkable. » Everything that follows is measured against that goal.

2. 02Identify the dominant appeal

   Say which lever carries the passage and why: « The passage is built on pathos rather than logos. There are almost no figures and no plan of action. What the audience is given instead is a landscape of places to defend, one after another, and a promise attached to each of them. »

3. 03Name the anaphora and state its effect

   Quote only what is documented, then explain: « The clause “we shall fight” opens one segment after another. The repetition does two things: it makes the sentence sound like an oath rather than a forecast, and it lets the listener anticipate the next clause, so that the audience is mentally saying it too. » The effect matters more than the label.

4. 04Point out the break and close

   Show that you read the STRUCTURE: « The final clause breaks the pattern. “We shall never surrender” is no longer a place but a decision, so the chain of geography ends in a moral commitment. That is why the passage is remembered as a pledge and not as a report on Dunkirk. »

Résultat : Une bonne analyse ne paraphrase pas : elle situe la prise de parole (Communes, 4 juin 1940, fin de Dunkerque), nomme l’appel dominant (pathos) en le justifiant par l’absence de logos, identifie l’anaphore en indiquant sa POSITION (en tête de propositions successives), et lit la rupture finale comme un changement de nature — du lieu à la décision. L’anglais reste précis : « the clause opens each segment », pas « there is a repetition ».

You are given three cases. (a) A friend shares a weather warning that turns out to be two years old, believing it is current. (b) An anonymous account invents a quotation and attributes it to a mayor a week before an election. (c) A newspaper publishes a politician’s genuine private medical records. In English, classify each case and justify your answer.

1. 01State the two criteria before classifying

   Make the grid explicit first: « Two questions decide the category. Is the content false? And is there an intention to harm? Misinformation is false without harmful intent, disinformation is false with harmful intent, and malinformation is true but used to harm. » Classifying without stating the criteria is guesswork.

2. 02Case (a): false, no intent

   « The warning is genuine but out of date, so the content is now false. The friend believes it and wants to protect people, so there is no intention to harm. This is misinformation. It shows that good faith is not enough: an old, real document can still mislead. »

3. 03Case (b): false, deliberate

   « The quotation was invented, so the content is false, and the timing a week before an election shows the intention. This is disinformation. The anonymity of the account is an additional warning sign, because it removes any accountability. »

4. 04Case (c): true, and harmful

   « Here nothing is false: the records are genuine. What makes it harmful is that private information has been made public. This is malinformation, and it is the hardest case, because the usual reflex — checking whether it is true — does not settle anything. The right question becomes whether the public interest justifies the intrusion. »

Résultat : La réponse attendue énonce les DEUX critères avant de classer, attribue correctement (a) misinformation, (b) disinformation, (c) malinformation, et surtout justifie chaque cas par les critères et non par l’intuition. Le point qui distingue une bonne copie est la remarque finale sur (c) : lorsque le contenu est vrai, la vérification ne tranche plus, et la question devient déontologique. L’anglais reste sobre et emploie « claim », « genuine », « intent ».

In English, answer the question “Was the 2023 decision to revise Roald Dahl’s books censorship?” in about twelve sentences. Define your terms, use only what is documented, weigh both sides, and reach a position.

1. 01Define before you judge

   Open on the definition, because the whole answer turns on it: « Censorship means that an authority prevents a work from circulating. What happened in 2023 was different: a publisher revised its own editions. Whether that is enough to call it censorship is exactly what has to be examined. »

2. 02State only what is established

   Keep to the record: « In February 2023, Puffin, the children’s imprint of Penguin Random House, announced revised editions of Roald Dahl in which passages about weight, mental health, gender and race had been changed. After a public reaction, the publisher announced that seventeen titles would also appear unchanged as the Roald Dahl Classic Collection. » No invented detail, no attributed motive.

3. 03Weigh the two strongest arguments

   Give each side its best case: « The argument for revision is that these are books handed to six-year-olds, and a child does not read a historical document, only a story. The argument against is that a text is evidence of the time that produced it, and that smoothing it removes the very thing a reader might learn from. »

4. 04Let the parallel edition settle the definition

   Conclude by using the fact, not a feeling: « The parallel edition is what decides the question for me. Because the original text remains available, nothing has been suppressed, so this is editorial revision rather than censorship. It would be a different matter if the older editions had been withdrawn. » The conclusion names what would change the answer, which is what a nuanced position looks like.

Résultat : La réponse attendue commence par DÉFINIR la censure, s’en tient strictement aux faits établis de février 2023 (Puffin, texte modifié, puis dix-sept titres au texte d’origine), donne à chaque camp son meilleur argument, et conclut en s’appuyant sur un FAIT — la survie de l’édition d’origine — plutôt que sur une opinion. Le dernier mouvement, « il en irait autrement si… », est ce qui distingue une position nuancée d’une position tiède.

A classmate from another group asks you what an English-language article on a proposed social-media law says. You have read it; they have not. In English, report it back in four moves and finish by opening the discussion.

1. Move 1 — say what the document IS

   Never start with the content: « This is an opinion piece published last month in a British newspaper, written by a media-law researcher. » Nature, source and date come first, because they tell your listener how much weight to give everything that follows.

2. Move 2 — give the content, ordered

   Hierarchise instead of listing: « Its main point is that the proposed law would make platforms, and not users, responsible for illegal content. It gives two supporting arguments: platforms have the technical means, and users cannot be traced reliably. » One main point, then the support.

3. Move 3 — make the cultural reference explicit

   This is the step French candidates skip: « The article assumes you know what the House of Lords is. It is the second chamber of the British Parliament, and it can delay a bill but not block it indefinitely. That is why the author says the timetable matters. » Explaining an implicit reference for someone else is precisely what mediation means.

4. Move 4 — separate the facts from the stance

   Close the report honestly: « The figures on removal times are facts, and they are sourced. But the claim that the law would end the problem is the author’s own position, not something the article proves. What do you think — should responsibility sit with the platform or with the user? » The question hands the exchange over, which is what interaction requires.

Résultat : Une médiation réussie se reconnaît à ses quatre mouvements : nature et source AVANT le contenu, contenu hiérarchisé et non listé, référence culturelle explicitée pour un interlocuteur qui ne la possède pas, et distinction finale entre ce que le document ÉTABLIT et ce que son auteur SOUTIENT. La question ouverte n’est pas un ornement : elle transforme un exposé en interaction, ce que le programme attend en terminale.