TASK: In 250-300 well-written words, give a reasoned explanation of how and why English borrowed words in the semantic domains of DIPLOMACY, POLITICS, and GOVERNMENT from the French language. (To help you think about this, some words borrowed from Medieval French into English include accord, treaty, alliance, plebiscite, regime, sovereignty, state, administration, constitution,jurisdiction.) Semantic domain just means the vocabulary relevant to a particular area of life (such as FOOD, ILLNESS, COLORS, FARMING, etc.).To answer this question you should:Briefly describe the French-English history around 1066 (You can find information on this in Chapter 2 of your textbook, and in many other sources. Be sure to cite your sourcesâeven if you just use the textbook.)Analyze and describe what borrowings in these semantic domains (diplomacy, politics, and government) suggest about the power relations between the Medieval French and the Medieval English populations.Rubric for Wrtten Assignment 1BCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting4 to >3.5 ptsFull/Nearly Full MarksOrganization, clear thesis statement(s), complete sentences, coherent paragraphs, proper writing mechanics. Cites sources3.5 to >2.0 ptsNeeds ImprovementSome minor grammatical problems or some confusing organizational structure. Missing citations (-.5)2 to >0 ptsPoorThere
is no clear thesis statement, the writing is disorganized or difficult to follow. Grammar is somewhat incorrect, but notably there are errors in the structure of the paragraphs and coherency.4 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDetails & Reasoning5 to >4.5 ptsFull/Nearl Full MarksDetail on French-English historical situation around 1066 and the aftermath is accurate. Reasoning is sound, connections and motivations for borrowings in relevant domains are well explained4.5 to >3.0 ptsNeeds ImprovementA bit weak in one area (4.5). Example of details: The details of the historical account are mostly correct but with minor inaccuracies. Example of reasoning: The reasoning is overall well explained with logical consistencies, but may have slight inconsistencies that do not impede understanding. Weak in both areas (3-4)3 to >2.0 ptsWeakSomewhat weak in both areas. Details: may be missing information, or some information may be somewhat inaccurate in framing. Reasoning: may be difficult to follow with logical gaps or inconsistencies; may be difficult to see clear reasoning behind the details presented and connections to the prompt.2 to >0 ptsWeak & MissingMissing one area and other area is weak5 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLength1 to >0.0 ptsFull MarksMeets length requirement0 ptsNo MarksDoesnt meet length requirement1 ptsTotal Points: 10