1) Daría a este texto el título: “Las cerillas del alma”, porque en él, la autora nos habla de la importancia que tienen las chispas del amor en alimentar nuestro espíritu y llevar una vida plena.
2) Con el relámpago, porque él también representa una decarga de electricidad, de energía luminosa.
3) Quiere decir que es muy importante que cada uno de nosotros encontremos y cultivemos aquellas cosas (aficiones, gustos, talentos) o personas (amistades, familiares, amores) que nos dan placer y nos hacen sentir bien, dado que es de esta manera que se alimenta nuestro espíritu y cobra sentido nuestra vida.
4) La abuela de la protagonista creía que en el interior del ser humano existía una caja de cerillas que estaban esperando que algo o alguien las encendiera. Con el calor que estas cerillas infundían se producía la energía interior que alimentaba el alma. Pero si acaso nada o nadie lograba hacerlas brillar, entonces el alma abandonaba ese cuerpo y vagaba errante buscando inútilmente el alimento que su cuerpo no había sido capaz de darle.
5) Se establece una profunda relación entre el cuerpo y el alma: según el texto, el cuerpo, a través de la vida que conducimos, es el responsable de la buena salud de nuestra alma. Es el cuerpo, viviendo de la mejor manera posible y relacionándose con los seres queridos, el posibilitador de que se genere energía vital para el alma.
6) Se refiere a que la abuela de la protagonista, por más que conociese cuáles eran las cosas o las personas que la hacían sentir bien y le daban alimento a su espíritu, evidentemente no había tenido la posibilidad de “encender sus cerillas”, es decir, no había podido estar con esas personas queridas o hacer esas cosas amadas. Acaso porque esas personas ya no estaban más a su lado o porque las había perdido, o porque le habían quitado las cosas que ella prefería. Se refiere a una vida muy sacrificada para esta abuela.
PRODUCCIÓN:
1) Resumen del texto:
A través de un experimento en el que se produce una combustión, la protagonista recuerda que su abuela creía que todos los seres humanos teníamos en nuestro interior una caja de cerillas que al encenderse producen una reacción especial, que genera una energía vital para el alma. Es decir, ella pensaba que la luz de esas cerillas se generaba gracias a la ayuda de un gesto amable de una persona amada que hacían brillar por un momento nuestra alma, y que lentamente se desvanecía hasta que no se encendía otra cerilla. Pero si acaso no se encendían nunca, pues entonces el alma abandonaba ese cuerpo en busca del alimento que le faltaba.
La protagonista recuerda también que esta abuela suya desgraciadamente no había tenido nada ni nadie que le diera el alimento necesario para su espíritu.
1) Daría a este texto el título: “Las cerillas del alma”, porque en él, la autora nos habla de la importancia que tienen las chispas del amor en alimentar nuestro espíritu y llevar una vida plena.
2) Con el relámpago, porque él también representa una decarga de electricidad, de energía luminosa.
3) Quiere decir que es muy importante que cada uno de nosotros encontremos y cultivemos aquellas cosas (aficiones, gustos, talentos) o personas (amistades, familiares, amores) que nos dan placer y nos hacen sentir bien, dado que es de esta manera que se alimenta nuestro espíritu y cobra sentido nuestra vida.
4) La abuela de la protagonista creía que en el interior del ser humano existía una caja de cerillas que estaban esperando que algo o alguien las encendiera. Con el calor que estas cerillas infundían se producía la energía interior que alimentaba el alma. Pero si acaso nada o nadie lograba hacerlas brillar, entonces el alma abandonaba ese cuerpo y vagaba errante buscando inútilmente el alimento que su cuerpo no había sido capaz de darle.
5) Se establece una profunda relación entre el cuerpo y el alma: según el texto, el cuerpo, a través de la vida que conducimos, es el responsable de la buena salud de nuestra alma. Es el cuerpo, viviendo de la mejor manera posible y relacionándose con los seres queridos, el posibilitador de que se genere energía vital para el alma.
6) Se refiere a que la abuela de la protagonista, por más que conociese cuáles eran las cosas o las personas que la hacían sentir bien y le daban alimento a su espíritu, evidentemente no había tenido la posibilidad de “encender sus cerillas”, es decir, no había podido estar con esas personas queridas o hacer esas cosas amadas. Acaso porque esas personas ya no estaban más a su lado o porque las había perdido, o porque le habían quitado las cosas que ella prefería. Se refiere a una vida muy sacrificada para esta abuela.
PRODUCCIÓN:
1) Resumen del texto:
A través de un experimento en el que se produce una combustión, la protagonista recuerda que su abuela creía que todos los seres humanos teníamos en nuestro interior una caja de cerillas que al encenderse producen una reacción especial, que genera una energía vital para el alma. Es decir, ella pensaba que la luz de esas cerillas se generaba gracias a la ayuda de un gesto amable de una persona amada que hacían brillar por un momento nuestra alma, y que lentamente se desvanecía hasta que no se encendía otra cerilla. Pero si acaso no se encendían nunca, pues entonces el alma abandonaba ese cuerpo en busca del alimento que le faltaba.
La protagonista recuerda también que esta abuela suya desgraciadamente no había tenido nada ni nadie que le diera el alimento necesario para su espíritu.
1) In diesem Textausschnitt aus R.Kunzes "Die wunderbaren Jahre" wird eine der verschiedenen Alltagssituationen von Kinder- bzw. Jugendlichenerziehung geschildert, die auf subtile Weise das Paradox eines wortwörtlichen Verstehens vorführt.
2) Der Vater könnte gesagt haben: "Leg die Kuchenstücke auf den Teller, ich gehe die Freunde begrüssen." Der Junge fragt nach: "Alle Stücke?" oder auch: "Allen Kuchen?" und der Vater antwortet wohl auch: "Allen." Der Junge versteht die Anweisung ganz buchstäblich, achtet nicht auf die kleine Variante des Singular "auf den Teller/auf die Teller", die möglicherweise schon in der Küche bereitstanden. (Der Vater denkt bei seiner Anweisung ausschliesslich an den grossen Vorlagenteller oder vielmehr an die beabsichtigte Begrüssung der Freunde.) Er schichtet alle Kuchenstücke - nachdem er sie nochmals geviertelt hatte - auf einen einzelnen kleinen Kuchenteller, sodass ein echter Turm aus Kartoffelkuchen entsteht.
3) Der Vater zeigt kein Verständnis für seinen Sohn, im Gegenteil, er "sparte nicht mit Stimme" und schimpft vermutlich intensiv mit dem 10-Jährigen. Die geladenen Freunde werden befragt, und es kommt zu einer kleinen Beschäftigung mit Kreativität oder nicht, mit Perspektivenwechsel, mit Einbettung in bekannte Zielvorgaben (Soldat oder Maurer?).
4) Der Sohn hat aus der Beurteilung gelernt, dass er Vorgesetzte wie seinen Vater besser meidet und nicht in die Armee gehen sollte; er hat also eine substantielle Veränderung durchlebt. Der Vater zeigt nur die Überlegung an der Oberfläche, seine Kinder nicht vor Gästen zu kritisieren.
5) Diese Redewendungen zeigen eine Haltung des Rechtfertigens, das sich aber nur linear auf der Performance-Ebene entwickelt. Dahinter stand wohl eine anschliessende Diskussion.
6) Der Dialog zwischen Vater und Sohn wird nur in indirekter Rede wiedergegeben, das Gespräch mit den Freunden in direkter Rede. So lässt sich vermuten, dass auch das Verhältnis zwischen Vater und Sohn eher wie ein Abstandhalten zu sehen ist.
7) Der Junge ist schon etwas zu gross, um einfach nur trotzig zu sein, daher will er sich für seine Rebellion etwas einfallen lassen. Ob der Junge ein besonderes Ziel verfolgte, ist nicht sofort zu erkennen. Der Autor aber zeigt mit dieser Beschreibung auf subtil satirische Weise, wie der Erziehungsalltag aussehen kann, wenn nur Befehl und Ausführung im Mittelpunkt stehen.
Textkürzung:
Der vorliegende Text gibt mit einem kurzen Ausschnitt den Blick frei auf eine Realität, die dem Leser reichlich grotesk erscheinen dürfte: ein 10-Jähriger führt wortwörtlich die Aufforderung seines Vater aus, was zu einer paradoxen Turmkonstruktion führt. Interessant an diesem Textausschnitt ist die Perspektiventeilung: die erste Hälfte beschäftigt sich mit der Zielsetzung zu zeigen, dass aus diesem Sohn offenbar nichts werden könnte, die zweite Hälfte zeigt die Konditionierung von aussen, was die Leute
denn sagten (wirkliche Freunde würde ich diese Gäste nicht nennen), eine Darstellung, die die Realität von Kunzes DDR-Zeiten hautnah spürbar macht.
1) Im vorliegenden Zeitungsartikel vom Oktober letzten Jahres geht es um das viel diskutierte Thema Rauchverbot, und der Titel benutzt die Zigarettenmarke "Gauloises", um zu zeigen, dass diese Diskussion sich auch nach Frankreich erstreckt.
2) Irland, Schottland und die britischen Inseln, Norwegen, Schweden und Italien fügen sich bereits dem Verbot, in öffentlichen Bereichen nicht zu rauchen; England und Frankreich diskutieren noch.
3) Die strenge Handhabung in Irland zeigt sich in beispielsweise der Bestrafung eines irischen Gastwirts, vor dessen Lokal weit nach Mitternacht acht Männer im Freien standen und rauchten. Es nutzt die Argumentation , dass man wenigstens die Arbeitenden schützen müsse, wenn man schon den Rauchern nicht verbieten könnte, sich zu vergiften.
4) In Frankreich hat man das Rauchverbot über die Anhebung der Tabaksteuern versucht, der Zigarettenkonsum sank auf 30 Prozent. Seit 1991 müssen Cafés und Restaurants eine rauchfreie Zone ausweisen, Flugzeuge sind schon rauchfrei, seit Anfang diesen Jahres auch der Hochgeschwindigkeitszug, und in der nächsten Phase soll jeder öffentliche Bereich rauchfrei werden.
5) Der nachweisbare Konsum ist zurückgegangen, aber vielleicht kaufen die Franzosen jetzt ihre Zigaretten anderswo. Eine Konsumreduzierung könnte durch ein verändertes Rauch-Image entstanden sein, allerdings gibt der Artikel dazu keinen Aufschluss.
6) An keinem überdachten Arbeitsplatz solle geraucht werden, und auch das Cafè sei ein Arbeitsplatz.
7) Eine humorvolle Betrachtungsweise wählt der Autor mit der Schilderung dieser o.g. Figuren: "acht Männer, die weit nach Mitternacht im Freien vor der Kneipe standen" oder des Übersetzers Rowohlt, der - obwohl Irlandliebhaber- wegen des Rauchverbots emigriert, und schliesslich mit dem Zitat des norwegischen Slogans: "Das Einzige, was hier geräuchert wird, ist der Lachs".
Textkürzung
Im vorliegenden SZ-Artikel vom Oktober letzten Jahres geht es um das sich ausbreitende Rauchverbot. Straßburger Abgeordnete verfolgen den Aspekt des Arbeitsrechts, wonach der Schutz am Arbeitsplatz gewährleistet sein soll, und allmählich dehnt sich das Verbot auf ganz Europa aus.
1. The stage directions give instructions to the actors about the mood they should inject into their words (anguish, suddenly furious etc), some of the actions they should make physically (he snaps his fingers, he sighs deeply) and also about pauses and silences they should observe. Waiting for Godot is a play to be performed on stage in front of an audience. There are certain things the author of the play wants to be included in the actions, tone or mood of the play which are not actually in the words themselves. That is when he uses stage directions and shows they are not to be confused with the actor’s lines by putting them in italics.
2. Vladimir seems to have a greater grip on “reality” and to be more rational. His memories of events are stronger. He is dismayed by his friend’s lack of certainty and the apparent lack of importance he attaches to knowing things. Vladimir is apparently more logical bit deeply irritated by his friend when Estragon does not meet his expectations. Estragon who is apparently unconcerned with fact and accepts his human nature without question becomes “suddenly furious” when Vladimir pushes him about recognition. He provides an insight into the quality of his life which will not allow him – he says – to recognise a place because he has spent his entire life in the mud. Vladimir, whose superior knowledge has made him condescending towards Estragon, immediately begins to calm him. The two men especially complement each other in the second part of the extract when they begin a contrapuntal conversation, questioning and answering, responding and providing ideas and images for each other. Beckett uses his ability to create nuances of conversation in order to present the differences in his characters with Vladimir the logical asking the audience for understanding when he says “he’s forgotten everything” and using expressions like “of course” and “all the same” to underline his assumption of logic.
3. The two men are completely dependent on each other. The interplay of conversation shows their interdependence on the other man’s answer – any answer. They re-signify their reality and reassure themselves that things have actually happened by asking each other to confirm facts. They taunt each other to
the point of exasperation and then try to calm the other down. In his frustration Estragon suggests it might be better if they parted but Vladimir reminds him that he has already done this many times and has “always come crawling back”. There is also a point in the conversation where they stop using “I” and begin to refer to themselves as “we”, a sure sign of inter-dependence and identifying oneself with the couple.
4. The first part of the extractt has longer sentences containing examples of repetition both of words and patterns: “The tree ....”, “the tree”, “Do you not remember?” .... “Do you not remember”, “...forgotten already?”, “... forgotten them too?” Repetition runs continuously through the dialogue with words and names – remember, Macon etc. sometimes repeated immediately and other times after an interval. The second part of the excerpt pares down the conversation with short, tightly interwoven phrases and here the repetition, both of words and structures, becomes even more obvious. In many of the exchanges the two men pick up on the first word from the sentence before and use it to begin their idea; “like leaves”, “like ashes”, “like leaves” or “they rustle”, “they murmur” and again “to have lived is not enough for them”, “to be dead is not enough for them”. The effect of the repetition is to induce a dream-like state, the sensation of a lack of reality or of ritual repeated endlessly by the two men over a period of time we can only guess at.
5. The men are involved in a very personal reinterpretaion of their own memories and often the sensation is that they are not completely in contact with each other. The dialogue does not have linear structure, it goes back and forth between memories and suggestions and re-evocations almost like a stream of consciousness but with the two men attempting to hold on to a common theme with varying degrees of success. At some points the impossibility of communication between two people is highlighted by a more obvious non-coherence. For example the introduction of the idea of Macon becomes less and less coherent with Vladimir assuming common memories and Estragon protesting he has never been there. Even Vladimir throws the spectator into doubt by saying “I could swear we were there together” as if he were no longer sure. Estragon supplies an extemely ambiguous “I didn’t notice anything” but says it is “possible” they were there and then Vladimir completely confuses us with his allusive “down there everything is red”. With this non-coherence Beckett drives the spectator deeper and deeper into the unshareable parts of human experience where red could be wine from the grapes they were
picking or the blood of the “billions” of “killed” people who are evoked later. He underlines the illusion we create when we converse together and immagine we are understanding each other when this is in fact not possible.
6. The “dead voices” could refer to people who have been killed during the war and whose spirits continue to whisper and rustle. The dead voices could also be all the voices of humanity who, like the two men themselves are incapable of keeping silent and who all speak at once, each one to itself. Beckett is telling us again, in a more explicit way, of the impossibility of real communication. We all speak at once and we hear only ourselves. However we are forced to speak in order not to hear or think and because it is not enough for us to live – we have to talk about our life.
7. Time and space become ambiguous in Beckett’s hands. He refuses to allow comforting linear or chronological development and constantly creates a lack of certainty about where the men are, where they have been and how long they have been there. In the first part of the extract there is a great deal of uncertainty between the two men about the fact of the tree; “Was it not there yesterday”?, “You dreamt it”, Estragon accuses Vladmir. Estragon throws doubt on Vladimir’s version of the facts; “All that was yesterday you say?” and asks, “What is there to recognise?” Obviously this doubt is transferred onto the spectators of the play.
8. Beckett explores the themes of memory and our attempts to construct common ground with others by sharing these memories (or reflections). By exploring the way converstaion is built up he demonstrates how difficult it is to establish some common identity or memory which we can use as a basis for further communication. Into our conversation we bring entirely personal associations and thoughts which to others are “non coherent”. We block out memories that for other people are of great importance in determining a sense of reality and frustrate them with our preoccupation for other aspects of life which are not so important to them. He also explores the idea that despite these difficulties we must talk, we must find people to listen to us. There seem to be two reasons for this in Becketts view. One of these is the vital importance of blocking out silence which induces us to think and reflect and look into ourselves. Human beings use different strategies for conversation; “let’s contradict each other”, “let’s ask each other questions” in order not to hear the silence; “this is terrible”, “help me”. Another slightly more optimistic reason for talking is to feel we exist, that through other people hearing our voices,
our words, our story, we have a greater sense of our existence; “they talk about their lives”, “to have lived is not enough for them”.
9. In 1953 it is easy to understand that the expectations of an audience may have been very different from Beckett’s exploration in this play. Many people may have expected a beginning, a middle and an end and a more traditional narrative form whereas Beckett forces us to contemplate the ambiguity of time and memory and its backward and forward nature. The backdrop and scenery, from what we can understand in the extract, offer very little help to the audience in locating or placing the action. We have a tree and two men – little else. The dialogue does not offer the relief which Becketts’ two characters are seeking; words to stop us thinking. On the contrary the dialogue forces us to confront our own fears and our inability to govern those fears on a deeply unconscious level. This play was certainly not written in order to entertain. In this extract there is a sense that the play will not come to a satisfying end, with the resolution of some deep moral issue as in Greek tragedy or with that return to “normality” which Jerome Bruner cites as one of the essential elements in what is universally recognised as a “good story”
10. The extract contains many examples of how the pathetic and futile attempts of its characters to make sense of reality or of their situation; “This is awful”, “Sing something”, can be interpreted from diffrent points of view. There is some deep sense in which we recognise ourselves in the entrenched, ritualised interplay between the two characters. It speaks to us of those human relationships - family or work or friends - where communication has become difficult but where we seek to hold on to the comfort of the other person’s presence. At the very beginning Vladimir expresses disbelief that his friend cannot rememeber the tree because only yesterday the two men tried to hang themselves from it. The bone and the reason it was given to Estragon by Lucky’s keeper elude the audience. Beckett underlines these absurdities with a hyper-real conversation taken from everyday life; “You and your landscapes”. Obviously these elements of the human condition are both deeply tragic and deeply comic. All great playwrights have recognised this and used it to effect in providing relief from the unresolvable tragedies implicit in the human condition.
SUMMARISE the content of the extract
Two men find themselves by a tree and discuss whether this tree has suddenly appeared or was also there yesterday. One of the men, Vladimir, is angry that his companion, Estragon, does not have a better memory but then Estragon also becomes angry and loses his calm. Vladimir attempts to calm him down.
They discuss whether it might not be better to part for good when Vladimir tells Estragon what a difficult person he is to get on with.
They decide instead to try and converse calmly since they find it impossible to stay silent. They reflect on this fact and why it might be, the reasons why they feel the need to talk. After some time they run out of words and there is a silence which fills them with deep anxiety. Maybe they should sing. They decide that the difficult part is to get started, but it is difficult to decide how. After some tentative trial and error a conversation seems to get underway. We are left with the impression of the men’s desperate resolve not to let the conversation stop. For the silence not to start again.
1. The main advantage of teaching people to think is that it makes them capable of doing many things. They are able to train and retrain and are capable of flexibility and adaptability when they take their mental skills from one situation to another. Teaching people to think provides an educated workforce for employers and for the country, not just a trained workforce.
2. Education is more extensive than training because training relates to a specific job whereas education makes a person. For this reason it is more valuable.
3. To receive an education makes us richer, more interested and interesting people. We do not exist to work and education does not exist in order to make us capable of doing a job. Through our education we can understand the joy of pursuing noble interestswhich will make us better citizens.
4. A liberal education fosters the idea of living a rich and satisfying life, where value is added to our relationships and we bring thoughtfulness to our civic responsibilities.
5. The main aim of philosophy is to encourage independence of mind and the ability to critically sort good things from bad. It forms a contrast to unreflective acceptance of dogma which causes instinctive reactions and polarisation of contrasting points of view. Many of the problems existing in the world today are the consequence of this lack of reflection.
6. The standard way people acquire their views about the world is through accepting conventional beliefs provided to them by others. Usually these other people are parents, church leaders and other similar figures.
7. Philosophy cannot give ready answers because its rich tradition offers different and often competing points of view. The debates of phiposophy can help us to work out our own views. All philosophers agree that people are at their best when they honestly and carefully think for themselves. This makes it impossible for philosophy to provide the perfect explanation which we can “take off the shelf” instead of forcing ourselves to reflect and find our own answers.
8. The great added extra given by a philosophical education is the light it throws on every aspect of humanity’s effoorts to understand itself and the world.
9. Internet makes information available at great speed and in great quantities. However information is not knowledge and knowledge alone is not understanding. Knowledge only becomes understanding after careful, open appreciation of what it means and what its uses are. The goal of philosophy is the goal of understanding and for this reason a philosophical education is of great significance in the era of Internet.
10. A philosophical education can help develop better individuals and a better world because it makes us moree reflective. It equips us to listen to other people’s points of view, to learn how to sympathise with them, to give them the space to live their lives and it makes us capable of defending our own choices in a principled and constructive way. The skills we need in order to do these things are all essentially philosophical: understanding and evaluating other people’s outlook, examining our own attitudes and adjusting our behaviour and choices as a consequence.
SUMMARIZE the content of the passage
There is an essential difference between training and education. Training equips people to do only one job. Education equips people to transfer their mental skills from one situation to another. Employers and the entire nation can benefit from this.
Aristotle’s idea of education was thay it eqipped us for more noble pursiuts in our free time including being more thoughtful about our civic responsibilities and the value of our relationships.
A liberal education is concerned with the ability to think about the great questions at the heart of the human condition, as does philosophy.
Philosophy asks fundamental questions about right and wrong, good and bad, the truth and the right way to obtain knowledge.
For 2,500 years Western civilisation has produced a tradition of debate in philosophy which with its premise of free, independent pursuit of truth and knowledge stands in strong contrast to standard ways of obtaining knowledge, generally passed on by family or church leaders and other similar figures.
This standard way of obtaining knowledge without thoughtful reflection causes the instinctive reactions and prejudice causing many of the problems in the world today.
Philosophy does not give us ready answers to the big questions in life. However it provides us with the material to search for our own answers.
It provides us with life-skills that no kind of vocational training can provide. It teaches us to be respectful of others and to defend our own values in a constructive manner.
In the age of Internet these skills take on particular significance. Information is available to us in unheard-of quantities and is often confused with knowledge and understanding. However understanding is the fruit of careful reflection on the meaning and uses of knowledge. The goal of philosophy is exactly this kind of understanding.
1) La réaction de Papa laisse entrevoir une certaine indifférence. Il rentre dans la salle à manger avec une lettre dans ses mains. Son sourire fait apparaître son affection mais aussi son ironie. Sans mesurer les paroles, il annonce, tout simplement, à sa famille que Madame Delahaie est morte et il jette la lettre du notaire sur la table.
2) Maman s’excuse avec son mari parce qu’elle a cuisiné, encore une fois, des lentilles.
3) « Homme du monde » Cette expression, dans ce texte, veut indiquer un homme qui appartient à la bonne société et dont les manières et le comportement sont très agréables.
4) Maman fond en larmes car elle éprouve, certainement, une sorte d’affection pour Madame Delahaie, qui l’a élevée.
5) Les enfants, réunis dans la salle à manger, font leurs devoirs distraitement, sauf, peut-être, Ferdinand qui trace, soigneusement, des caractères sur la page.
6) Maman a préparé une soupe aux lentilles. Les enfants ne semblent pas tellement enthousiastes de ce plat. Mais, de toute façon, ils apprécient la sensation de chaleur que la soupe leur donne.
7) Madame Delahaie pourrait être la nourrisse de maman.
8) Papa ne s’arrête pas dans le vestibule et n’enlève pas son chapeau et son manteau, comme d’habitude, parce qu’il a hâte de donner la nouvelle du décès de M.me Delahaie à sa famille.
Production
La scène a lieu dans la salle à manger. Les enfants sont en train de faire leurs devoirs avant de dîner. Maman a préparé une soupe de lentilles, qui n’a pas l’air de faire plaisir à tout le monde. Il s’agit toujours du même plat. Papa est en retard mais il va bientôt arriver. Quand il arrive, il annonce à sa famille que M.me Delahaie est décédée. Tout le monde est indifférent, sauf Maman qui se fond en larmes. M.me Delahaie l’avait élevée. Tout se passe comme d’habitude comme si rien ne s’était passé.
1) L’expression veut indiquer une situation sans issue et qui peut devenir de plus en plus grave au cours de son évolution.
2) Les universités européennes ont la possibilité de partager toute une série d’initiatives et de mettre en commun des cours d’études. C’est-à-dire, qu’il y a une collaboration parmi les différentes universités européennes.
3) Les chiffres sont bouleversantes. Elles sont remarquables. Plusieurs français sont allés chercher du travail à l’étranger et cette tendance est en forte augmentation.
4) Benoît Garcia ne se fait aucun souci. Il sait qu’il va partir et ceci lui suffit.
5) Il y a des candidats un peu naïfs qui doivent être conscients que trouver un travail à l’étranger et y vivre n’est pas toujours la solution optimale pour résoudre les problèmes personnels.
6) L’expression veut indiquer qu’un jeune, dans une forte situation de compétitivité, sera anéanti et même écrasé parmi d’autres candidats.
7) L’expression indique, tout simplement, aller chercher une situation optimale à l’étranger qui puisse offrir de bonnes conditions de travail et un bon standard de vie.
8) Oui, il a eu des expériences de travail à l’étranger.
Production
Plusieurs jeunes Français quittent leur pays pour trouver un poste de travail à l’étranger. Cette tendance augmente de plus en plus. Ceci est certainement dû au chômage mais pas seulement. C’est une conséquence de la mondialisation. Les entreprises sont engagées dans tous les continents et le marché du travail est devenu, désormais, global.
Tratto dal sito repubblica.it, a cura di Linda Rossi Holden
Accedi a tutti gli appunti
Tutor AI: studia meglio e in meno tempo
