Gaokao Losers

In the foreign education, the importance of teaching of foreign culture has been widely recognized. How to teach culture in foreign language education is faced by language educators all over the world. The question is very complicated since the answer relies on our understanding of the relation between the home culture and foreign culture, the relation between language and culture. This article deals with the deep connotation of English culture. It sets forth the differences between Chinese and English culture in such aspects as attitudes to compliments and business activities. It also concerns several options for the teaching of foreign culture in language programmes. As a conclusion, it points out that the English teachers in China should focus on cultivating the students’ cultural creativity in foreign language education.

‘Moderate Islam’

Chapter 6 examines the relationship between the Free Speech Clause and reproductive rights, specifically the Due Process Clause-based right to obtain an abortion. It explores early intersections between free speech and abortion rights, and also examines the circumstances and effects of their later intersections. The chapter focuses in particular on the controversies surrounding protests and other speech activities at or near abortion clinics, which significantly affected abortion rights discourse in the United States. These interactions also influenced interpretations of both reproductive and free speech rights. The chapter critically assesses the manner in which free speech concerns have tended to crowd out concerns about reproductive rights, and suggests some ways in which we might the relationship between free speech and abortion rights.

Free Speech: The Lost Years David M. Rabban In this essay, I intend to cover three basic topics. First, I will explain how I became inter­ ested in the history offree speech in the United States before World War I. Second, I will present an overview ofmy unexpected discoveries about this history in the years between the Civil War and World War I. Finally, I will conclude by pointing out what I perceive to be some striking similarities between the analysis offree speech before World War I and significant current criti­ cisms of First Amendment decisions by the Supreme Court since the 1970s. My interest in free speech before WorldWar I first developedwhile I was a student at Stanford Law School between 1971 and 1974. During my three years at Stanford, I took general survey courses in constitutional law and American legal history, advanced courses in constitutional law, and seminars in constitutional history and free speech. As I completed these classes, I increas­ ingly was struck by the common, though largely unarticulated, assumption that no significant legal interpretation of free speech had occurred between 1801, when the Sedition Act of 1798 expired, and 1917, when Congress passed the Espionage Act soon after the United States en­ teredWorldWar I. Scholars typically viewed Justice Holmes’ 1919 decision in Schenckv. United States' as the Supreme Court’s initial confrontation with the meaning offree speech, and “Free­ dom of Speech in War Time,”2 published three months later by Professor Zechariah Chafee, Jr., as the earliest major law review article dealing with the subject. They similarly regarded the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), founded in 1920, as the first significant organization devoted to defending freedom of expression. Many perceived the legal history of free speech since World War I primarily as the development of a “worthy tradition”3 of protection for un­ popular speech, begun by the famous, mostly dissenting, opinions ofJustices Holmes and Brandeis from 1919 through the 1920s, and reaching fruition in a series of landmark decisions by the liberal Supreme Court in the 1960s and early 1970s. 146 JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY By the end ofmy third year oflaw school, I questioned the assumed absence of legal dis­ putes over free speech during the long period between 1800 and 1917. The social unrest of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centu­ ries—the years immediately before the sup­ posed beginning ofFirstAmendmentjurispru­ dence—seemed especially likely to have pro­ duced debate and litigation about free speech. Just in the decades immediately before 1917,1 suspected, agitation by workers, anarchists, and advocates of birth control tested the meaning of free speech. My hunch proved correct, and my recent book, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years (Cambridge University Press, 1997), is the re­ sult. An enormous variety ofcases at all levels of the judicial system refutes the widespread assumption that litigation over free speech be­ gan abruptly with prosecutions under the Es­ pionage Act of 1917. These cases, however, have been obscured ever since Chafee mini­ mized and mischaracterized them in his 1919 article, “Freedom ofSpeech in WarTime.”4 Re­ lying uncritically on Chafee, subsequent schol­ ars have not independently examined the pre­ war period. They exceed even Chafee in their neglect of the substantial litigation over free speech before World War I. For example, no major casebook on constitutional law includes a single decision before 1917 in its section on freedom of expression.5 Only a few scholars have tried to explain the assumed absence ofearlierjudicial encoun­ ters with free speech issues. Like most people interestedin constitutional matters, these schol­ ars think mostly about the federal courts, par­ ticularly the Supreme Court. As a result, they have focused on possible factors limiting fed­ eral jurisdiction. The text ofthe First Amend­ ment prohibits only Congress from abridging free speech. Some have asserted that the Sedi­ tion Act of 1798, which expired in 1801, was the only federal legislation before the Espio­ nage Act of 1917 that posed significant threats to free speech. An important Supreme Court decision in 1812 held that federal courts did not have jurisdiction over common-law crimes,6 thereby reducing their exposure to free speech issues. The ratificationofthe Fourteenth...

In the United States, First Amendment protections for free speech are deeply associated with democracy. The dominant view in the Supreme Court and among commentators is that the primary (albeit not necessarily the only) reason we protect free speech is because of its essential role in advancing democratic self-governance. What are the implications of the democratic self-governance theory for free-speech protections outside the United States, in particular in nondemocratic countries? If we assume that the role of free speech is to advance democratic politics, then presumably non-democratic countries would have no reason to protect or tolerate speech. After all, if one rejects western-style liberal democracy, presumably one also rejects the subsidiary rules that undergird that system of government. The truth, however, is more complex. First of all, the vast majority of constitutions in the world grant at least some level of written protection for free speech, even though many of these constitutions are in countries which do not even purport to be free, multiparty democracies. Of course, many of these constitutional protections are shams; but it is simply not the case that no autocratic regimes permit free speech. The purpose of this paper is to explore how and why that might be so, and to consider whether the answers to these questions might have implications for domestic law.I begin by surveying the scope of global protections for free speech in written constitutions, and then examining in some detail three case studies of autocratic countries which have provided a degree of room for free speech: modern Communist China, the Soviet Union during the Glasnost era under Mikhail Gorbachev, and modern Qatar. In each case, I demonstrate that the regime provides meaningful protections for free speech, albeit with clear limits. I also argue that in each of these cases, the leadership has absolutely no interest in advancing democracy or surrendering their monopoly on power. Yet even without democracy, they perceive that permitting some degree of free speech advances their interests and the interests of their citizens and nations.Based on my case studies, I identify three distinct reasons why autocratic leaders might have an interest in permitting some freedom of speech by citizens. The first, and most significant, is internal control. In any large, bureaucratic system, central leadership often faces great difficulty in getting local officials to advance central policies and follow central leadership. Citizens can play an important role in identifying, and publicizing, corruption and lawlessness, as well as violations of central policy, at the local level. Second, free speech can act as a safety valve. Permitting some degree of free speech can, therefore, alleviate pressures for political change. Third, free speech as a form of citizen participation in government can lend legitimacy to a government, even without the legitimacy conferred by popular consent through elections. I also explore the countervailing factors – notably the desire for rulers to maintain their power – which result in clear limits on what sorts of speech will be tolerated in autocracies.I close by considering whether these alternative justifications for protecting free speech have any implications for speech within the United States. I argue they do, for this reason: even though our system of government is at its base democratic, actual citizen interactions with the government often are not experienced this way. This means that in addition to protecting democratic government, free speech also plays some of the same roles in the U.S. as in autocracies: permitting oversight over the bureaucracy, providing a safety valve, and granting legitimacy to high officials. I close by considering some doctrinal implications of this insight.

Depiction of Muslims in Selected Australian Media

On 23 August 2005, John Howard, then Prime Minister, called together Muslim ‘representatives’ from around the nation for a Muslim Summit in response to the London bombings in July of that year. One of the outcomes of the two hour summit was a Statement of Principles committing Muslim communities in Australia to resist radicalisation and pursue a ‘moderate’ Islam. Since then the ill-defined term ‘moderate Muslim’ has been used in both the political and media discourse to refer to a preferred form of Islamic practice that does not challenge the hegemony of the nation state and that is coherent with the principles of secularism. Akbarzadeh and Smith conclude that the terms ‘moderate’ and ‘mainstream’ are used to describe Muslims whom Australians should not fear in contrast to ‘extremists’. Ironically, the policy direction towards regulating the practice of Islam in Australia in favour of a state defined ‘moderate’ Islam signals an attempt by the state to mediate the practice of religion, undermining the ethos of secularism as it is expressed in the Australian Constitution. It also – arguably – impacts upon the citizenship rights of Australian Muslims in so far as citizenship presents not just as a formal set of rights accorded to an individual but also to democratic participation: the ability of citizens to enjoy those rights at a substantive level. Based on the findings of research into how Australian Muslims and members of the broader community are responding to the political and media discourses on terrorism, this article examines the impact of these discourses on how Muslims are practicing citizenship and re-defining an Australian Muslim identity.

American Exceptionalism, the Cold War, and The Last Dance Victoria Harms Nominally, the ESPN docuseries The Last Dance deals with the Chicago Bulls' 1997–98 season. In all honesty, it is about the life and legend of Michael Jordan. The first episodes stress his unparalleled popularity at home and abroad to illustrate his mythic status: time and again, the experts declare him the greatest and most recognizable athlete in the world. ESPN tends to present male-centric, heteronormative, and patriotic narratives. The Last Dance is no exception. For sports historians, the docuseries offers a unique opportunity to contextualize this notion of American exceptionalism—Jordan incarnate—and the international developments that made this global success story possible. Jordan's rise to worldwide stardom coincided with the end of the Cold War and the concomitant commercialization of sports. When he entered Chapel Hill in 1981, the sporting world looked very different and inconducive to the international career he would embark on. The United States had led a boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow: in the Americans' absence, Yugoslavia won basketball gold, Italy silver, and the Soviet Union bronze. The Soviet Union and other Communist countries, in turn, boycotted the 1984 games in Los Angeles. In episode one, the Bulls' general manager Rod Thorn (1978–85) chuckles at his ingenuity of drafting Jordan just weeks before the opening ceremony. ESPN, which had launched in 1979, had started broadcasting regular college games, while the networks only carried top games and the NCAA championship. Not even all NBA games were televised live yet. By contrast, the Olympics, especially the 1984 games, for which ABC had doled out an unprecedented $225 million, were a major TV spectacle that guaranteed U.S. athletes, including Jordan, a favorable nationwide audience. During the Cold War, it was common to toughen up the U.S. Olympic hopefuls by pitching them against professionals. While for the college players these exhibition games were a halfway station to the NBA, the pros used the opportunity to put the future rookies in their place. Notoriety for its brutality gained the game in the Hoosier Dome in Indianapolis on July 9, 1984, in which Bobby Knight's protégés faced off against a selection of NBA players, among them Larry Bird, John Paxson, and Isiah Thomas. On August 10, 1984, the U.S. team won gold for the tenth time in Olympic history. Jordan, intermittently plagued by toothaches, was key to this success but so were Chris Mullin and Patrick Ewing. The true star of the 1984 games was, of course, Carl Lewis, the first since Jesse Owens to win four gold medals. In the 1980s, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union were on the brink of becoming legitimate competitors. The United States, represented by Steve Kerr, Muggsy Bogues, Sean Elliott, David Robinson, and others, won the 1986 FIBA World Cup; the USSR came in second and Yugoslavia third. Dražen Petrović, who joined the Portland Trailblazers in 1989, was voted the tournament's MVP. Two years later, at the Olympics in Seoul, the [End Page 269] Soviet Union defeated the United States in the final—for only the second time in history. In 1990, Yugoslavia, reigning Euro Cup champion, won the FIBA World Cup. The team included the championship MVP Toni Kukoć and the two NBA players Dražen Petrović and Vlade Divać. Although packed with talent, the U.S. team barely managed to place third with a two-point overtime victory over Puerto Rico. The emergence of such competition, as well as the projected profit margins of broadcasting rights, sponsorships, and new markets, convinced NBA Commissioner David Stern to give in to FIBA's secretary general Boris Stanković, who, for years, had sought to have the U.S. pros join international competitions. Stanković, who hailed from Europe's basketball bastion Yugoslavia, hoped to attract more public and private investments if U.S. pros participated in the World Cup and the Olympics. Due to the communists' habit of employing "state athletes," amateurism had been a farce, and the International Olympic Committee had more or less abandoned amateurism after Los Angeles. FIBA passed the vote in favor of NBA players' participation in April...

This book provides a comprehensive and impartial overview of laws and norms regarding free speech and censorship in the United States, with a particular focus on free speech rights and restrictions for individuals, politicians, corporations, and news organizations. Free Speech and Censorship: Examining the Facts is part of a series that uses evidence-based documentation to examine the veracity of claims and beliefs about high-profile issues in American culture and politics. This volume examines beliefs, claims, and myths about free speech and censorship issues in American society, including landmark court decisions and evolving cultural values that have shaped our understanding of the First Amendment and the liberties it enshrines and protects. Specific chapters in the volume explore basic principles of free speech; unprotected types of speech; conditionally protected speech; restrictions and regulations governing protected speech; free speech limitations in school settings; the corrosive impact of politicians and social media platforms that spread distortions and falsehoods under free speech pretexts; and free speech as a general cultural ideal. Together, these chapters will provide readers with a thorough and accurate grounding in their First Amendment rights and responsibilities.

Reviewed by: Free Speech on Campus by Sigal R. Ben-Porath Ashenafi Alemu Aboye, Ph.D, Sessional Lecturer Sigal R. Ben-Porath. Free Speech on Campus. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017. 128 pp. Hardcover: $16.49 (List price on amazon). ISBN 978–0–8122–5007–7 Sigal R. Ben-Porath, a professor of philosophy and education and a former chair of the university's Committee on Open Expression at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote Free Speech on Campus, a detailed documentation of controversial issues surrounding academic freedom. The book is organized into a preface, four chapters, and a conclusion and practical guideline section that spans over 128 pages including the notes and acknowledgments. In the preface, Ben-Porath offers readers the context in which she experienced the issue of free speech on campus, the sit-in incident staged by students at the University of Pennsylvania that was later resolved through negotiation after the students' staged the protest for about two days. From there, Ben-Porath proceeds further to a brief introduction of the forthcoming chapters to her readers. In Chapter 1, entitled "The State of the Debate," the writer presents the different perspectives of the argument along with concrete examples from real-life incidents across the universities in the United States. In this section, Ben-Porath mentions a number of crucial incidents on campus including controversial issues such as the Halloween Costumes and Safe space at Yale, Struggling for Racial Equality in Missouri, Rejecting Trigger Warning in Chicago, and Chasing Away Controversial Speakers at Berkley and Middleburg, among others. What is most important about this chapter is the fact that the writer traced the different views that are challenging, controversial, as well as limiting and surrounding free expression on campus. After critically reflecting on the misconceptions and barriers to free speech on campus, Ben-Porath proceeds to Chapter 2, entitled "Inclusive freedom", where she develops this notion of inclusive freedom as a framework that can operate in all contexts. In advancing the argument for freedom of expression on campus, Ben-Porath develops the notion of inclusive freedom and makes recommendations in response to the polarizing views of the intellectual left and right wing advocates. In the chapter, BenPorath presents why it is essential to allow free speech for all stakeholders, simultaneously recognizing the demands of vulnerable groups, the issue of diversity on campus, avoiding harm as well as diversifying curricula. The major foundation of the argument for inclusive freedom is also fortified in her re-affirmation of the fact that "free speech and inquiry are central tenets of the university or college life and its mission, and that diversity, equity, and inclusion need to be respected" (pp. 42–43). In Chapter 3, entitled "Identity and Free Speech on the Quad," and Chapter 4, entitled "Putting Civility in its Place," the writer suggests the ways to implement inclusive freedom in the public context and in classrooms, respectively. In the third chapter, the writer specifically advocates for inclusive freedom while challenging the complexities in the notion of safe space, identity, harmful speech, and civility, among others. An interesting read in the chapter comes where the writer discusses two types of safety: Intellectual and dignitary safety. On the one hand, the writer advocates for dignitary safety, which refers to "the sense of being an equal member of the community and of being invited to contribute to a discussion as valued participant" (p. 62). On the other hand, she states that intellectual safety, the refusal to listen to difference and as a [End Page E-1] denial of opposing viewpoints, is harmful to free inquiry (p. 62). Similarly, in "Putting Civility in its Place," the writer raises crucial issues that curtail free expression in the classroom, ranging from the issue of tenure to campus student groups and their leaders in the light of identity. In this section, the writer states the need to distinguish between speech inside and outside the classroom, the notion of safety in these two contexts, and how these can be dealt with in the light of inclusive freedom as a framework. The writer argues that intellectual safety should be rejected in the classroom and that students and instructors should...

Introduction: The National Curricular Parameters of 2000 point out a new path for the teaching of foreign languages in Brazilian school. They determine that the language must be taught in such a way that it enables students to actually communicate by using the language. They also suggest that the teaching of a foreign language should allow students to learn about foreign cultures as well. The National Curricular Parameters (2000:25) state that, “the Foreign Languages take on the condition of being an indissoluble part of the set of essential knowledge that allow the student to approach several cultures and, consequently, promote his integration in a globalized world”. Furthermore, the National Curricular Parameters assert that grammar must be taught in context and not isolated as it used to be. Thus, this lesson plan has as its theoretical support those two ideas of the National Curricular Parameters: enabling students to learn about foreign cultures and teaching, or in the case of this plan in specific, reviewing a grammar topic in a real context of use.

Iconoclasts with strongly held beliefs and a willingness to buck orthodoxy, Apple's Steve Jobs and the Chicago Bulls' Phil Jackson shared similarities in character, leadership style, and life experience that extended beyond the extraordinary successes they achieved in their chosen fields. Both came of age in the United States of the mid-20th century, a time and place characterized by Americans' growing interest in philosophical traditions outside of the Western mainstream. In their teens and twenties, both men became interested in Eastern religious practices. As young men, Jobs (who would as a teenager travel to India to study Buddhism) and Jackson (whose interest in Eastern practices earned him the nickname The Zen Master) developed a particular affinity for the Zen tradition of Buddhism, which had a lasting influence on each man's worldview. Although Jackson and Jobs were very different leaders operating in remarkably different industries, both men's rise to the top of intensively competitive fields were influenced by their commitment to three Zen principles: nondualism, practical wisdom, and inherent enlightenment.This note gives a brief overview of the history of Zen and the philosophical framework that underpins it, then describes the potential that these three tenets hold for unlocking strategic insights. Excerpt UVA-S-0318 Rev. Jan. 10, 2020 Zen for Strategy San Francisco, California, January 2007 Dressed in his usual blue jeans and black turtleneck, Steve Jobs strode across the stage at San Francisco's Moscone Center to deliver the Macworld 2007 keynote address. Apple's annual extravaganza attracted tens of thousands of technology enthusiasts eager to learn about the company's latest innovations. For the many software developers, journalists, and fans in attendance, Jobs's remarks and dramatic presentation were Macworld's most anticipated event. Ten years earlier, Jobs had been reinstated as CEO to the company he cofounded, having been fired by John Sculley a dozen years earlier. At the time of Jobs's return, Apple was losing market share, laying off employees, and near insolvency. But over the next decade, Apple would return from the brink of bankruptcy to become a highly profitable Wall Street darling and a dominant brand on the cutting edge of consumer technology. Many of the products that fueled Apple's reemergence—the iMac computer, the OS X operating system, the iTunes online media marketplace, and the iPod music player—had been introduced in one of Jobs's Macworld keynote addresses. . . .

Reviewed by: HATE: Why We Should Resist it with Free Speech, Not Censorship by Nadine Strossen Richard Ashby Wilson (bio) Nadine Strossen, HATE: Why We Should Resist it with Free Speech, Not Censorship (Oxford University Press 2018), ISBN: 9780190859121, 232 pages. Hate is trending. The sitting president of the United States regularly mobilizes his political constituency by vilifying Mexican immigrants as “criminals and rapists” who “infest” America, and by promoting a “zero tolerance” policy at the border that punitively separates children from their parents, including persons applying for asylum. There has been a resurgence in white nationalist ideology globally both in mainstream electoral politics and in ugly scenes on the streets of Charlottesville, Dresden, and Warsaw. In the United Kingdom, hate crimes spiked after the Brexit referendum and in the USA, there has been a steady rise in hate crimes against African-Americans, Muslims, immigrants and members of the LGBT community. Given this current paroxysm of populism, isn’t it high time we re-evaluated our commitment to freedom of expression and start contemplating new legislation to regulate discriminatory speech that targets vulnerable minorities? In HATE: Why We Should Resist it with Free Speech, Not Censorship, Nadine Strossen, former national President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), offers a resounding defense of free speech and rejects attempts to suppress or ban speech that is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. Free speech is the lifeblood of democratic deliberation, argues Strossen, and much hate speech in the United States, while offensive, is protected speech and should remain so. Current US law only suppresses speech that intentionally advocates imminent lawless action that is likely to occur, and even then, the regulation of speech must occur in a way that is consistent with the viewpoint (or content) neutrality principle which inhibits the state from disfavoring some opinions simply because they are disagreeable. Strossen starts with the observation that there is no clear and consistent definition of “hate speech,” which she puts in scare quotations throughout the book. Hate speech is not a term of legal art and it is simply wrong to assert, as some liberal politicians have, that “hate speech is not free speech.” In Strossen’s view, “the terms ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crimes’ are simply deployed to demonize views people find offensive and to call for punishing a broad swathe of expression, including political discourse that is integral to our democracy.”1 Reviewing hate speech laws in the US and globally, Strossen concludes that it is simply not possible to draft hate speech laws that are not unduly vague, overbroad and counter-productive.2 Germany, France, and other European countries convict hundreds of defendants a year for offences as capacious as “incitement to hatred,” and Strossen documents a number of cases that seem disproportionately chilling of political [End Page 213] speech. They include the 2014 arrest of a British politician for publicly reading a Winston Churchill quote from 1899 that denounced the treatment of women in Muslim countries, and the conviction of a Danish man in 2016 who criticized “the ideology of Islam” on Facebook, and posted the statement, “Islam wants to abuse democracy in order to get rid of democracy.”3 She reminds us also of the long and repressive history of government censorship in the United States, including how, in the 1830s, Southern states banned abolitionist speech on the grounds that it had the potential to incite violence and rebellion. She observes that the Republican National Committee and some state legislatures have included the Black Lives Matter movement in resolutions condemning hate speech. HATE addresses the lively and fairly acrimonious campus hate speech debate currently taking place in the United States, and Strossen counsels faculty and students to confront provocative speakers at universities with “counterspeech” and vigorous opposing arguments, rather than to silence them with heckling and censorious campus hate speech codes.4 She points out that all the campus speech codes challenged in the courts by the ACLU have been struck down on First Amendment grounds and recommends that universities permit all speech that the government does not itself censor.5 Strossen does not countenance the view that merely being exposed to denigrating speech is in...

The French Reception of <i>Adventures of Huckleberry Finn</i>: A Belated Consecration

SAVCHUK Borys – PhD hab. (History), Professor of Pedagogy & Education Management of Bogdan Stuparyk Department, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, 57 Shevchenko Str., Ivano-Frankivsk, 76018, Ukraine E-mail address: boris_savchuk@ukr.net ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2256-0845 ResearcherID: https://publons.com/researcher/2903385/boris-savchuk/ HARAPKO Liubov – Postgraduate student of English Philology and Teaching Methods of Foreign Languages Department, Mukachevo State University; lecturer of English, Pedagogical College, Mukachevo State University, 59 Komenskyi Str., Mukachevo, 89600, Ukraine E-mail address: lubaharapko@ukr.net ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6401-301X ResearcherID: https://publons.com/researcher/3471381/lyuba-harapko/ To cite this article: Savchuk, B., & Harapko, L. (2020). The phenomenon of foreign language education in the modern scientific discourse. Human Studies. Series of Pedagogy , 10/42, 11‒24. doi: https://doi.org/10.24919/2413-2039.10/42.198796 Article history Received: December 15, 2019 Received in revised form: January 11, 2019 Accepted: March 11, 2020 Available online: April 28, 2020 Journal homepage: http://lssp.dspu.edu.ua/ p-ISSN 2313-2094 e-ISSN 2413-2039 © 2020 The Authors. Human studies. Series of Pedagogy published by Drohobych Ivan Franko State Pedagogical University & Open Journal Systems. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ ). The article analyzes the modern scientific discourse on understanding the phenomenon of foreign language education. An interpretation of concepts and terms defining the modern terminology of foreign language learning, such as “bilingualism”, “multilingualism”, “multicultural education”, “bilingual education”, “mother tongue”, “foreign language”, “second language”, “Foreign language”, etc. is generalized. It has been found that the authorship of the term “foreign language education” belongs to E. Passov, who introduced it into scientific circulation in the second half of the 1990s in the context of actualizing the personality-oriented education paradigm. The linguist argued that this term should replace the notion of “learning a foreign language”, because modern people must learn not only the language of a particular people and country, but also their culture. It is shown that the term “foreign language culture” is to some extent artificially internalized into the theory and practice of the Ukrainian pedagogical science, since its correspondence in the formulation of “foreign language education” has not been found in the English language literature. Instead, it includes the term “language education” to refer to the theory and practice of acquisition of a second or foreign language. The contribution of Ukrainian and foreign teachers and linguists to the development of the theoretical and methodological aspects of foreign language culture has been determined. The main interpretations of this phenomenon in the pedagogical literature have been presented. It is shown that the term “foreign language education” has become widely used in the Ukrainian pedagogical science, in particular it is actively used in the works on its development in Ukraine and foreign countries. The definition of the foreign language education as a specifically organized pedagogical process of teaching, upbringing and development of the student’s personality on the basis of the content and means of the discipline “foreign language” has been suggested. Based on the analysis of pedagogical and linguistic literature, the essential characteristics of the phenomenon of “foreign language education” in the aspects of its integrity, axiological orientation, instrumentality, effectiveness and efficiency have been demonstrated. The following basic structural components of the foreign language education have been distinguished and characterized: epistemological (knowledge of the country’s culture and languages); educational (language knowledge and skills as a means of communication); developmental (the psychological and mental characteristics of native speakers and the cultural values of a particular country); educational (the pedagogical content of a foreign-language culture, concerning its moral, ethical, aesthetic and other aspects). Acknowledgments. We express our sincere thanks to the staff of Pedagogy & Education Management of Bohdan Stuparyk Department of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University. Funding. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.