Лингвистика текста и переводческое реферирование. Учебное пособие

days of the pandemic. The measures announced, though, were hardly significant: for example, introducing mandatory masks in shops and on public transport only brings England in line with what the other home nations have long been doing, and hospitality venues such as pubs and restaurants aren’t included in the new rules.

This is far removed from the long discussed “plan B” – including working from home guidance and Covid passports – that some leading medics have been calling on ministers to implement for more than a month, but that is being resisted by Tory backbenchers.

Perhaps most worryingly, protections for those most at risk from the virus, such as older and disabled people, were not even mentioned. There is no government advice as yet on how clinically vulnerable people are meant to live throughout the winter. Previously, 3.7 million clinically vulnerable people in England were asked to shield in their homes, and were given some government support to do so. Now they are effectively on their own, left to navigate having to go into the office, or meet friends at Christmas in a pub with no masking rules.

Even before the discovery of the new variant, people with underlying health conditions were being widely ignored, despite case numbers remaining high. Months after the official shielding programme ended, Office for National Statistics data from October showed almost one in four clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) people were still shielding, while 68% were leaving the house but taking extra precautions.

Many CEV people tell me they’re bracing against the cold and only socialising outdoors, while others aren’t seeing loved ones at all. As one young man with cerebral palsy and asthma, who is not leaving his flat other than for vaccine appointments, told me: “I feel like a hamster on a wheel. If anything, the isolation of shielding is getting more entrenched than ever before by the rest of the population returning to ‘normal’.”

Ministers have only made matters worse. Over the past few months, the government has removed many measures that would have helped clinically vulnerable people. In England, the legal requirement to wear a mask ended as far back as July, apart from in healthcare settings and care homes. Once furlough ended in October, clinically vulnerable people had

81

fewer options to shield themselves. Many were sent back to packed offices or public-facing roles, without the legal right to work from home or still be paid if they couldn’t.

Since August, close contacts of people in England who test positive for Covid haven’t had to self-isolate if they have been double-vaccinated. The government appears to have little interest in either preventing or tracking non-hospitalised Covid cases – a strategy that is dangerous to even vaccinated clinically vulnerable people in the UK, who must try to avoid contracting Covid in a population where 1 million people currently have the virus.

The government clearly believes vaccines – and the booster programme in particular – can form its main line of defence, but while the rollout is providing huge relief, it is not a silver bullet. More than 100,000 extremely vulnerable people are yet to have their third jab after confusion over who is eligible. Medication or certain health problems mean two in five people who have impaired immune systems have a “low or undetectable” antibody response after being double vaccinated, meaning they in particular require a “vaccine plus” strategy – such as masks and increased distancing – to feel safer. The consequences of all this can’t be ignored: millions of people with underlying health conditions are being shut out from public life.

The government’s new strategy is a step in the right direction, but to get through the winter and protect clinically vulnerable people we need to take further low-cost measures. Reintroducing “work from home if you can” guidance would have the biggest individual impact on reducing Covid transmission, according to scientists. There also needs to be greater support for workers who need to self-isolate. Statutory sick pay isn’t sufficient for people to pay their bills, while many insecure workers say they’re afraid they won’t be given hours in the future if they take time off to isolate. Unless the government provides better support, employees will turn up sick, increase transmission and infect vulnerable colleagues.

There needs to be more focus on ventilation and regular lateral flow tests, particularly in schools and large venues. It makes little sense to bring back masks in shops, but not offices. But the real issue will likely be

82

inspiring compliance. It is natural for pandemic fatigue to be setting in, and the government’s contradictory messaging has only compounded this.

The same prime minister who was photographed without a mask in hospital now expects to command public trust on mandating them in Asda. There needs to be an emergency public health campaign, particularly over the high effectiveness of masks in reducing transmission. The public acted with solidarity early in the pandemic because the message was that measures would protect not only ourselves but others – there should be no reason why we can’t rediscover that sense of community.

The government’s framing around “saving Christmas” suggests anyone who asks for more Covid measures now is the Grinch. But this is surely backwards thinking. As Hans Kluge, the World Health Organization’s regional director for Europe, puts it: Applied “correctly and consistently”, preventive measures “allow us to go on with our lives, not the opposite”.

With rising cases in Europe resulting in new lockdowns, and the NHS facing its regular winter crisis, it’s long been in all of our interests to reduce transmission. It is a stain on Johnson’s government that it took the emergence of a new variant to spur the preventive action we already needed. Ministers have a duty to do more to protect the public this winter – and that includes clinically vulnerable people (25).

ТЕКСТ 6.

Задание 1. Проведите компрессию текста и напишите реферат данной статьи.

“The Parliament’s fight for gender equality in the EU”

Find out how the EU and the European Parliament fight to protect women's rights and to improve gender equality at work, in politics and other areas.

What does the EU do to tackle inequalities?

83

Since its start, the European Union has used any policies and any measures needed in order to promote gender equality and create a more social Europe.

The Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

The EU has adopted legislation, issues recommendations, exchanges and good practices and provides funding to support action by member states. The concepts of EU gender equality policy were shaped by European Court of Justice rulings. The European Parliament regularly adopts own initiative reports on gender issues, calling for more efforts to improve gender equality.

The European Parliament has always been very active on achieving equality between men and women and has a standing committee dedicated to women's rights and gender equality. Every year, Parliament marks International Women’s Day on 8 March and raises awareness by organising events.

In December 2020, MEPs called for the establishment of a new Council format where ministers and secretaries of state in charge of gender equality would meet. MEPs hope that such a new Council configuration would help advance important gender equality initiatives, such as the ratification of the Istanbul convention on combating violence against women.

Parliament adopted a resolution to assess the progress made in women’s rights over the past 25 years and the many challenges still ahead in February 2021. MEPs expressed concern with the backlash in some EU countries and the risk that gender equality could further slip down their agenda. Parliament also called on the European Commission to ensure that women’s rights are taken into account in all its proposals, to develop concrete plans to improve women’s poverty rates and to strengthen efforts to close the gender pay gap.

84

In June 2021 Parliament adopted a report urging EU countries to protect and improve women’s sexual and reproductive health. MEPs want universal access to safe and legal abortion, high-quality contraception and sex education in primary and secondary schools. They also called for a VAT exemption on menstrual products.

Gender equality at work

In 2019, the EU approved new rules on family and care-related leave and more adaptable working conditions, to create more incentives for fathers to take family-related leave and to increase women’s employment

rate. EU legislation on gender equality in the work place:

rules on employment (incl. equal pay, social security, working conditions and harassment)

rules on self-employment

rights to maternity, paternity and parental leave

Parliament also called for concrete measures to narrow the gender pay gap – the difference between what men and woman are paid for the same work – which in the EU was an average of 14.1% in 2019 and the pension gap – the difference in pension income that men and women get – which stood at 29.5% in 2018. It also called for measures to tackle female poverty, as women are more likely to live in poverty than men.

Closing Europe's gender gap

Women are underrepresented in Europe’s digital sector, as they are less likely to take up studies or apply for a job in this field. In a resolution adopted in 2018, MEPs called on EU countries to put in place measures to ensure the full integration of women into ICT sectors, as well as foster education and training in ICT, science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

In a resolution adopted in February 2021, Parliament called for progress on the proposed rules that would ensure at least 40% of nonexecutive members on company boards are women. The Commission made the proposal in 2012, but the member states in the Council have not been able to find agreement.

85

“Each member state shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied.”

Article 157, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)

Preventing violence against women

The EU is tackling violence against women in various ways. Parliament has drawn attention to the need to combat specific forms

of violence, including sexual harassment, trafficking, forced prostitution, female genital mutilation, cyberstalking and online violence.

In February 2021, MEPs urged the Commission to come up with a proposal for an EU directive that will prevent and combat all forms of gender-based violence. In the EU, 33% of women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence and 55% of women have been sexually harassed.

From migration policy to EU trade

Parliament has repeatedly called on the European Commission to increase consistency between gender equality policies and other policies, such as those covering trade, development, agriculture, employment and migration.

In a resolution adopted in 2016, members called for a set of EU-wide gender guidelines as part of wider reforms on migration and asylum policy.

In a report adopted in 2018, MEPs called for climate change measures to take into account the role of women as well as action to empower them and protect the most vulnerable.

All EU trade agreements must include binding and enforceable provisions to ensure respect for human rights, including gender equality, according to a resolution adopted in 2018.

Women in politics

The Parliament has repeatedly highlighted the importance of gender equality in politics, promoting women's equal participation in decisionmaking processes at all levels.In a report adopted in January 2019, Parliament called on European political parties to ensure both women and men are put forward for the bodies governing the European Parliament in

86

the ninth parliamentary term. In the new Parliament, which officially started in July 2019, there are more women than ever, accounting for 41% of MEPs, up from 36.5% at the end of the previous term.

Gender equality and the Covid-19 pandemic

The Parliament is worried that the Covid-19 crisis intensifies existing gender inequalities. The pandemic may have a long-term impact, because it could potentially push an additional 47 million women and girls below the poverty line worldwide. In addition, women are at the Covid-19 frontline – out of the 49 million healthcare workers in the EU, 76% are women. The pandemic has also affected sectors of the economy where traditionally more women have been employed, such as hospitality, nursery and domestic work (26).

ТЕКСТ 7.

Задание 1. Выполните реферативный перевод данной статьи.

Here’s why people might discriminate against foreign accents – new research

If someone asked you to read this text aloud in a French accent or an Italian one, you would likely understand what that means and be able to produce some version of it, even if it’s not entirely accurate (assuming you’re not a native French or Italian speaker). You might even adopt one spontaneously if quoting from The Godfather.

On the face of it, we often enjoy hearing different accents. The way we talk simply reflects the sounds of the language in the environment in which we grew up. It should not have any social significance. But in reality, people do attribute value to accents and discriminate against nonnative speakers.

Although some accents, such as French, might be perceived as pleasant, research into English speakers in the US and UK shows that a foreign accent is often perceived negatively.

For example, people rate salespeople as less knowledgeable and convincing if they have an accent, and some research indicates that they are less likely to recommend someone for hiring or promotion if the person has a foreign accent.

87

Interestingly, the discrimination often seems to be independent of whether the accent of the speaker is perceived as desirable or not. For example, people were more interested in receiving a voucher for a coffee shop if they listened to a message from a native speaker rather than someone with a foreign accent, regardless of whether the foreign accent was French (an accent often considered as desirable), or Chinese.

Part of the bias seems to derive from the fact that a foreign accent signals a person as an outgroup member – someone who is not part of their usual circles – and people tend to favour ingroup over outgroup members. This is a behaviour that starts in infancy, probably because it’s a direct cue as to whether someone is familiar and part of our “social group”.

It’s not just prejudice

In our recent study we show that people might discriminate against non-native speakers even if they are not prejudiced. That’s because it can be harder to process foreign-accented speech – which is pronounced differently to the native norms – including accents which we do not perceive in a negative way at all. And people tend to believe information less if it’s harder to process.

When we presented participants with recordings of trivia statements such as “the sun shrinks five feet every hour”, participants rated the same trivia statements as more likely to be true when they were said by a native speaker compared with a Polish-accented speaker.

If at least part of the bias was due to difficulty in processing foreignaccented speech, then making it easier for participants to understand the accent should increase their tendency to believe non-native speakers. We know from prior research that exposure to accent makes it easier to understand it. So, we exposed half of our participants to stories read by Polish-accented speakers before they rated the trivia task. The other half listened to the same stories read by native speakers.

First, we checked whether exposure to Polish-accented speakers improved participants’ comprehension of Polish-accented speech. An accent comprehension task showed that it did.

A key finding of our study was that the exposure to Polish-accented speech also reduced participants’ bias88against non-native speakers.

While participants who were first exposed to Polish-accented speech still rated trivia statements as more likely to be true when they were read by native speakers than when they were read by Polish-accented speakers, the difference was smaller. We also found that the participants who performed better on the accent comprehension task were more likely to believe the trivia statements read by the Polish-accented speakers.

Let’s celebrate accents

Our study shows that simply increasing exposure to foreign-accented speech can reduce difficulties in accent processing and bias. So by creating more diverse environments where native and non-native speakers regularly interact, we could potentially help counteract any unconscious discrimination on the basis of accent. Contact between native and nonnative speakers can also help to reduce prejudice.

At the same time, a cultural change is needed. In addition to promoting diversity, we should all, as a first step, be aware of the fact that each of us has an accent. And that it is simply based on the sounds of the linguistic environment in which we grew up. Accents do not reflect intelligence, and nor are they related to our proficiency in a language. Indeed, non-native speakers can of course be highly fluent in a language even while retaining their native accent (24).

ТЕКСТ 8.

Задание 1. Составьте краткий реферат данной статьи.

Does vaping really damage DNA and increase the risk of cancer?

Vapers experience DNA changes, according to a recent paper published in Nature, and the changes are similar to those seen in smokers – although much less pronounced.

Crucially, this evidence was based on a few people by examining changes in their DNA at the time of the analysis, similar to creating a snapshot image, without considering any potential future change in vaping or smoking behaviour. The study does not provide real-world evidence of vaping-associated ill health in humans.

Positively, the study attempts to separate the effects of vaping itself from the effects of damage caused by tobacco smoking. This is difficult

89

because most vapers use e-cigarettes to help them stop smoking and so are likely to be ex-smokers.

An important outcome of this analysis, somewhat buried in the paper, is that the damaged genes in smokers was  about 7.4 times higher than in vapers. So what this study finds is what we know already: vaping is not completely risk free but is much less risky than smoking tobacco.

Transcriptomics (the study of “gene readouts” in a cell), which this study used, is a promising field that explores the molecular mechanisms and potential processes leading to the future development of cancer. However, it cannot currently be used to accurately predict future cancer

risk. The study recruited a relatively small number of people who were not representative of the population. And it did not consider other lifestyle habits that may affect the measurements, such as alcohol use.

Studies are already emerging showing that switching from smoking to e-cigarettes can have health benefits, such as improvement in respiratory symptoms and lung function in asthma patients, or improvements in measurements that predict the future development of disease, such as blood vessel function for cardiovascular disease.

Other studies show that exposure to toxins is far lower in vapers who used to smoke compared with current smokers. It is important to look at all the evidence, which supports the harm reduction role of e-cigarettes as a smoking substitute.

Sadly, studies that do not examine direct clinical effects are easily interpreted and reported as evidence of health damage. A Daily Mail headline states: “Vaping damages DNA and raises the risk of cancer the same way as cigarettes”. Although the second part of the headline offers balance: “but it’s not as bad as traditional smoking”, the damage to public perceptions may already be done.

Nothing is risk free

No one is claiming that e-cigarettes are completely risk free. Inhaling anything into the lung may result in changes to DNA that could increase risks for future disease. Inhaling fumes from diesel cars, for example, has

90