Leia o texto e responda a questão.

The analysis of the relationship between forms and functions of language is commonly called discourse analysis, which encompasses the notion that language is more than a sentence-level phenomenon. A single sentence can seldom be fully analyzed without considering its context. We use language in stretches of discourse. We string many sentences together in interrelated, cohesive units. In most oral language, our discourse is marked by exchanges with another person or several persons in which a few sentences spoken by one participant are followed and built upon by sentences spoken by another. Speakers formulate representations of meaning not just from a single sentence but also from referents in both previous sentences and following sentences.

Consider the following:

A. Got the time?

B. Ten fifteen.

Waiter: More coffee?

Customer: I’m okay.

Parent: Dinner!

Child: Just a minute!

In so many of our everyday exchanges, a single sentence sometimes contains certain presuppositions that are not overtly manifested in surrounding sentence-level surface structure, but that are clear from the total context. All three of the above conversations contained such presuppositions (how to ask what time of day it is; how to say “no more coffee”; how to announce dinner and then indicate one will be there in a minute). Without the pragmatic contexts of discourse, our communications would be extraordinarily ambiguous.

(H. Douglas Brown. Principles of language learning and teaching 5th edition ed.Longman, 2000. Adaptado)

Leia o texto e responda a questão.

Fala e escrita, como formas de manifestação da linguagem, ocorrem em ambientes sociais distintos, com exigências específicas quanto à sintaxe e às estruturas textuais. Devido às suas próprias formas textuais e genéricas, fala e escrita diferem quanto às suas estruturas e funções características, fazendo com que, no âmbito do ensino, haja uma estreita ligação entre linguagem e cognição. Fala e escrita, por conseguinte, compõem modelos cognitivos distintos e que estão disponíveis para seus usuários. Uma vez que essas formas de manifestação da linguagem são diversificadas, a preocupação com sua delimitação e nomeação traduz-se na noção de gêneros discursivos de Bakhtin (1992).

Bakhtin concebe os gêneros do discurso como tipos de enunciados criados dentro dos vários campos da atividade humana. Consoante tal perspectiva, a linguagem é aprendida por meio de enunciados concretos, ouvidos e reproduzidos na comunicação verbal. Cada um dos vários gêneros apresenta suas próprias exigências em termos de conteúdo, de estrutura e de sequências linguísticas que os compõem. Todos esses aspectos devem ser aprendidos mediante práticas sociais que desenvolvam as capacidades de linguagem dos indivíduos e as estratégias de aprendizagem.

Leia o texto e responda a questão.

The analysis of the relationship between forms and functions of language is commonly called discourse analysis, which encompasses the notion that language is more than a sentence-level phenomenon. A single sentence can seldom be fully analyzed without considering its context. We use language in stretches of discourse. We string many sentences together in interrelated, cohesive units. In most oral language, our discourse is marked by exchanges with another person or several persons in which a few sentences spoken by one participant are followed and built upon by sentences spoken by another. Speakers formulate representations of meaning not just from a single sentence but also from referents in both previous sentences and following sentences.

Consider the following:

A. Got the time?

B. Ten fifteen.

Waiter: More coffee?

Customer: I’m okay.

Parent: Dinner!

Child: Just a minute!

In so many of our everyday exchanges, a single sentence sometimes contains certain presuppositions that are not overtly manifested in surrounding sentence-level surface structure, but that are clear from the total context. All three of the above conversations contained such presuppositions (how to ask what time of day it is; how to say “no more coffee”; how to announce dinner and then indicate one will be there in a minute). Without the pragmatic contexts of discourse, our communications would be extraordinarily ambiguous.

(H. Douglas Brown. Principles of language learning and teaching 5th edition ed.Longman, 2000. Adaptado)

Leia o texto e responda à questão.

The story of American literature begins in the early 1600s, long before there were any “Americans”. The earliest writers were Englishmen describing the English exploration and colonization of the New World. Thomas Hariot’s Briefe and True Report of the New-Found Land of Virginia (1588) was only the first of such works. Back in England, people planning to move to Virginia and New England would read the books as travel guides. But this was dangerous because such books often mixed facts with fantasy. For example, one writer wrote that he had seen lions in Massachusetts. It’s probable that these “true reports” had a second kind of reader. People could certainly read them as tales of adventure and excitement. Like modern readers of science fiction, they could enjoy imaginary voyages to places they could never visit in reality.

(P. B. High. Outline of American Literature. Essex, UK, Longman.

1996. Adaptado)

Underlying the traditional linear syllabus is the notion that learning is a process of mastering each item perfectly, one at a time. In metaphorical terms, it was believed that a language develops in the same way as a building is constructed – one (linguistic) brick at a time.

However, the complexity of the acquisition process revealed by a growing body of second language acquisition research led some syllabus designers to argue that language development is basically an organic process. According to this metaphor, a new language develops in a way comparable to plants growing in a garden rather than a building being constructed. Learners do not acquire each item perfectly, one at a time, but numerous items imperfectly, all at once.

With the advent of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the 1970s, a very different syllabus approach was proposed by a number of linguists. This approach began, not with lists of grammatical, phonological and lexical features, but with an analysis of the communicative needs of the learner. Proponents of CLT argued that it was neither necessary nor possible to include every aspect of the target language in the syllabus. Rather, syllabus content should reflect the communicative purposes and needs of the learners.

Needs-based course design, particularly when it results in rigidly specified learning outcomes, has been heavily criticized. Widdowson (1983), for example, claims that such courses are exercises in training rather than in education because learners can only do those things for which they have been specifically prepared.

Leia o texto e responda a questão.

The analysis of the relationship between forms and functions of language is commonly called discourse analysis, which encompasses the notion that language is more than a sentence-level phenomenon. A single sentence can seldom be fully analyzed without considering its context. We use language in stretches of discourse. We string many sentences together in interrelated, cohesive units. In most oral language, our discourse is marked by exchanges with another person or several persons in which a few sentences spoken by one participant are followed and built upon by sentences spoken by another. Speakers formulate representations of meaning not just from a single sentence but also from referents in both previous sentences and following sentences.

Consider the following:

A. Got the time?

B. Ten fifteen.

Waiter: More coffee?

Customer: I’m okay.

Parent: Dinner!

Child: Just a minute!

In so many of our everyday exchanges, a single sentence sometimes contains certain presuppositions that are not overtly manifested in surrounding sentence-level surface structure, but that are clear from the total context. All three of the above conversations contained such presuppositions (how to ask what time of day it is; how to say “no more coffee”; how to announce dinner and then indicate one will be there in a minute). Without the pragmatic contexts of discourse, our communications would be extraordinarily ambiguous.

(H. Douglas Brown. Principles of language learning and teaching 5th edition ed.Longman, 2000. Adaptado)

Leia o texto e responda a questão.

Fala e escrita, como formas de manifestação da linguagem, ocorrem em ambientes sociais distintos, com exigências específicas quanto à sintaxe e às estruturas textuais. Devido às suas próprias formas textuais e genéricas, fala e escrita diferem quanto às suas estruturas e funções características, fazendo com que, no âmbito do ensino, haja uma estreita ligação entre linguagem e cognição. Fala e escrita, por conseguinte, compõem modelos cognitivos distintos e que estão disponíveis para seus usuários. Uma vez que essas formas de manifestação da linguagem são diversificadas, a preocupação com sua delimitação e nomeação traduz-se na noção de gêneros discursivos de Bakhtin (1992).

Bakhtin concebe os gêneros do discurso como tipos de enunciados criados dentro dos vários campos da atividade humana. Consoante tal perspectiva, a linguagem é aprendida por meio de enunciados concretos, ouvidos e reproduzidos na comunicação verbal. Cada um dos vários gêneros apresenta suas próprias exigências em termos de conteúdo, de estrutura e de sequências linguísticas que os compõem. Todos esses aspectos devem ser aprendidos mediante práticas sociais que desenvolvam as capacidades de linguagem dos indivíduos e as estratégias de aprendizagem.

Underlying the traditional linear syllabus is the notion that learning is a process of mastering each item perfectly, one at a time. In metaphorical terms, it was believed that a language develops in the same way as a building is constructed – one (linguistic) brick at a time.

However, the complexity of the acquisition process revealed by a growing body of second language acquisition research led some syllabus designers to argue that language development is basically an organic process. According to this metaphor, a new language develops in a way comparable to plants growing in a garden rather than a building being constructed. Learners do not acquire each item perfectly, one at a time, but numerous items imperfectly, all at once.

With the advent of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the 1970s, a very different syllabus approach was proposed by a number of linguists. This approach began, not with lists of grammatical, phonological and lexical features, but with an analysis of the communicative needs of the learner. Proponents of CLT argued that it was neither necessary nor possible to include every aspect of the target language in the syllabus. Rather, syllabus content should reflect the communicative purposes and needs of the learners.

Needs-based course design, particularly when it results in rigidly specified learning outcomes, has been heavily criticized. Widdowson (1983), for example, claims that such courses are exercises in training rather than in education because learners can only do those things for which they have been specifically prepared.