Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

Morley (1999) has outlined four important goals for pronunciation instruction: functional intelligibility, functional communicability, increased self-confidence, and speech monitoring abilities.

For our purposes, intelligibility is defined as spoken English in which an accent, if present, is not distracting to the listener. Since learners rarely achieve an accent-free pronunciation, we are setting our students up for failure if we strive for nativelike accuracy. Eradication of an accent should not be our goal; in fact, some practitioners use the term accent addition as opposed to accent reduction to acknowledge the individual’s first language (L1) identity without demanding it be sublimated in the new second language (L2).

Functional communicability is the learner’s ability to function successfully within the specific communicative situations he or she faces. And, as they gain communicative skill, they also need to gain confidence in their ability to speak and be understood.

Bv teaching learners to pay attention to their own speech as well as that of others, we help our learners make better use of the input they receive. Good learners “attend” to certain aspects of the speech they hear and then try to imitate it. Speech monitoring activities help to focus learners’ attention on such features both in our courses and beyond them.

(Goodwin, Janet. Teaching Pronunciation. In Marianne Celce-Murcia. 3^rd ed. Teaching English as a second or foreign language. 3^rd edition. Boston, Massachusstes: Heinle&Heinle. 2002. Adaptado)

Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

Morley (1999) has outlined four important goals for pronunciation instruction: functional intelligibility, functional communicability, increased self-confidence, and speech monitoring abilities.

For our purposes, intelligibility is defined as spoken English in which an accent, if present, is not distracting to the listener. Since learners rarely achieve an accent-free pronunciation, we are setting our students up for failure if we strive for nativelike accuracy. Eradication of an accent should not be our goal; in fact, some practitioners use the term accent addition as opposed to accent reduction to acknowledge the individual’s first language (L1) identity without demanding it be sublimated in the new second language (L2).

Functional communicability is the learner’s ability to function successfully within the specific communicative situations he or she faces. And, as they gain communicative skill, they also need to gain confidence in their ability to speak and be understood.

Bv teaching learners to pay attention to their own speech as well as that of others, we help our learners make better use of the input they receive. Good learners “attend” to certain aspects of the speech they hear and then try to imitate it. Speech monitoring activities help to focus learners’ attention on such features both in our courses and beyond them.

(Goodwin, Janet. Teaching Pronunciation. In Marianne Celce-Murcia. 3^rd ed. Teaching English as a second or foreign language. 3^rd edition. Boston, Massachusstes: Heinle&Heinle. 2002. Adaptado)

Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

The disjunction between method as conceptualized by theorists and method as conducted by teachers is the direct consequence of the inherent limitations of the concept of method itself. First and foremost, methods are based on idealized concepts geared toward idealized contexts. Since language learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations are unpredictably numerous, no idealized method can visualize all the variables in advance in order to provide situation-specific suggestions that practicing teachers need to tackle the challenges they are confronted with every day of their professional lives.

Not anchored in any specific learning and teaching context, and caught up in the whirlwind of fashion, methods tend to wildly drift from one theoretical extreme to the other. At one time, grammatical drills were considered the right way to teach; at another, they were given up in favor of communicative tasks. At one time, explicit error correction was not only favored but considered necessary; at another, it was frowned upon. These extreme swings create conditions where certain aspects of learning and teaching get overly emphasized while certain others are utterly ignored, depending on which way the pendulum swings.

The limitations of the concept of method gradually led to statements such as “the term method is a label without substance” (Clarke, 1983, p. 109), and that it has “diminished rather than enhanced our understanding of language teaching” (Pennycook, 1989, p. 597). This realization has resulted in a widespread dissatisfaction with the concept of method.

(Kumaravadivelu, B. Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Haven and London: Yale University Press. 2003. Adaptado)

Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

The disjunction between method as conceptualized by theorists and method as conducted by teachers is the direct consequence of the inherent limitations of the concept of method itself. First and foremost, methods are based on idealized concepts geared toward idealized contexts. Since language learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations are unpredictably numerous, no idealized method can visualize all the variables in advance in order to provide situation-specific suggestions that practicing teachers need to tackle the challenges they are confronted with every day of their professional lives.

Not anchored in any specific learning and teaching context, and caught up in the whirlwind of fashion, methods tend to wildly drift from one theoretical extreme to the other. At one time, grammatical drills were considered the right way to teach; at another, they were given up in favor of communicative tasks. At one time, explicit error correction was not only favored but considered necessary; at another, it was frowned upon. These extreme swings create conditions where certain aspects of learning and teaching get overly emphasized while certain others are utterly ignored, depending on which way the pendulum swings.

The limitations of the concept of method gradually led to statements such as “the term method is a label without substance” (Clarke, 1983, p. 109), and that it has “diminished rather than enhanced our understanding of language teaching” (Pennycook, 1989, p. 597). This realization has resulted in a widespread dissatisfaction with the concept of method.

(Kumaravadivelu, B. Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Haven and London: Yale University Press. 2003. Adaptado)

Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

The disjunction between method as conceptualized by theorists and method as conducted by teachers is the direct consequence of the inherent limitations of the concept of method itself. First and foremost, methods are based on idealized concepts geared toward idealized contexts. Since language learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations are unpredictably numerous, no idealized method can visualize all the variables in advance in order to provide situation-specific suggestions that practicing teachers need to tackle the challenges they are confronted with every day of their professional lives.

Not anchored in any specific learning and teaching context, and caught up in the whirlwind of fashion, methods tend to wildly drift from one theoretical extreme to the other. At one time, grammatical drills were considered the right way to teach; at another, they were given up in favor of communicative tasks. At one time, explicit error correction was not only favored but considered necessary; at another, it was frowned upon. These extreme swings create conditions where certain aspects of learning and teaching get overly emphasized while certain others are utterly ignored, depending on which way the pendulum swings.

The limitations of the concept of method gradually led to statements such as “the term method is a label without substance” (Clarke, 1983, p. 109), and that it has “diminished rather than enhanced our understanding of language teaching” (Pennycook, 1989, p. 597). This realization has resulted in a widespread dissatisfaction with the concept of method.

(Kumaravadivelu, B. Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Haven and London: Yale University Press. 2003. Adaptado)

Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

The disjunction between method as conceptualized by theorists and method as conducted by teachers is the direct consequence of the inherent limitations of the concept of method itself. First and foremost, methods are based on idealized concepts geared toward idealized contexts. Since language learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations are unpredictably numerous, no idealized method can visualize all the variables in advance in order to provide situation-specific suggestions that practicing teachers need to tackle the challenges they are confronted with every day of their professional lives.

Not anchored in any specific learning and teaching context, and caught up in the whirlwind of fashion, methods tend to wildly drift from one theoretical extreme to the other. At one time, grammatical drills were considered the right way to teach; at another, they were given up in favor of communicative tasks. At one time, explicit error correction was not only favored but considered necessary; at another, it was frowned upon. These extreme swings create conditions where certain aspects of learning and teaching get overly emphasized while certain others are utterly ignored, depending on which way the pendulum swings.

The limitations of the concept of method gradually led to statements such as “the term method is a label without substance” (Clarke, 1983, p. 109), and that it has “diminished rather than enhanced our understanding of language teaching” (Pennycook, 1989, p. 597). This realization has resulted in a widespread dissatisfaction with the concept of method.

(Kumaravadivelu, B. Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Haven and London: Yale University Press. 2003. Adaptado)

Leia o texto, para responder à questão.

The disjunction between method as conceptualized by theorists and method as conducted by teachers is the direct consequence of the inherent limitations of the concept of method itself. First and foremost, methods are based on idealized concepts geared toward idealized contexts. Since language learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations are unpredictably numerous, no idealized method can visualize all the variables in advance in order to provide situation-specific suggestions that practicing teachers need to tackle the challenges they are confronted with every day of their professional lives.

Not anchored in any specific learning and teaching context, and caught up in the whirlwind of fashion, methods tend to wildly drift from one theoretical extreme to the other. At one time, grammatical drills were considered the right way to teach; at another, they were given up in favor of communicative tasks. At one time, explicit error correction was not only favored but considered necessary; at another, it was frowned upon. These extreme swings create conditions where certain aspects of learning and teaching get overly emphasized while certain others are utterly ignored, depending on which way the pendulum swings.

The limitations of the concept of method gradually led to statements such as “the term method is a label without substance” (Clarke, 1983, p. 109), and that it has “diminished rather than enhanced our understanding of language teaching” (Pennycook, 1989, p. 597). This realization has resulted in a widespread dissatisfaction with the concept of method.

(Kumaravadivelu, B. Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Haven and London: Yale University Press. 2003. Adaptado)

Leia os diálogos, para responder à questão.

Text 1: Making a doctor’s appointment

(telephone rings)

Patient: Could I make an appointment to see the doctor,

please?

Receptionist: Certainly, who do you usually see?

Patient: Dr Cullen.

Receptionist: I’m sorry but Dr Cullen has got patients all day.

Would Dr Maley do?

Patient: Sure.

Receptionist: OK then. When would you like to come?

Patient: Could I come at four o’clock?

Receptionist: Four o’clock? Fine. Could I have your name,

please?

(Nunan and Lockwood 1991)

Text 2: Confirming an appointment with the doctor

(telephone rings)

Receptionist: Doctor’s rooms, can you hold the line for a

moment?

Patient: Yes.

Receptionist: (pause) Thanks.

Receptionist: Hello.

Patient: Hello.

Patient: That’s all right … I’m just calling to confirm an

appointment with Dr X for the first of October.

Receptionist: Oh …

Patient: Because it was so far in advance I was told to.

Receptionist: I see what you mean, to see if she’s going to be

in that day.

Patient: That’s right.

Receptionist: Oh we may not know yet.

Patient: Oh I see.

Receptionist: First of October … Edith … yes.

Patient: Yes.

Receptionist: There she is. OK.. What’s your name?

Patient: At nine fift…

Receptionist: Got it got it.

(Burns, Joyce and Gollin 1996)

(Carter, Ronald et al. Telling tails: grammar, the spoken language and materials development. In Tomlinson, B. (ed). Material Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP. 1998/2011. Adaptado)

Leia os diálogos, para responder à questão.

Text 1: Making a doctor’s appointment

(telephone rings)

Patient: Could I make an appointment to see the doctor,

please?

Receptionist: Certainly, who do you usually see?

Patient: Dr Cullen.

Receptionist: I’m sorry but Dr Cullen has got patients all day.

Would Dr Maley do?

Patient: Sure.

Receptionist: OK then. When would you like to come?

Patient: Could I come at four o’clock?

Receptionist: Four o’clock? Fine. Could I have your name,

please?

(Nunan and Lockwood 1991)

Text 2: Confirming an appointment with the doctor

(telephone rings)

Receptionist: Doctor’s rooms, can you hold the line for a

moment?

Patient: Yes.

Receptionist: (pause) Thanks.

Receptionist: Hello.

Patient: Hello.

Patient: That’s all right … I’m just calling to confirm an

appointment with Dr X for the first of October.

Receptionist: Oh …

Patient: Because it was so far in advance I was told to.

Receptionist: I see what you mean, to see if she’s going to be

in that day.

Patient: That’s right.

Receptionist: Oh we may not know yet.

Patient: Oh I see.

Receptionist: First of October … Edith … yes.

Patient: Yes.

Receptionist: There she is. OK.. What’s your name?

Patient: At nine fift…

Receptionist: Got it got it.

(Burns, Joyce and Gollin 1996)

(Carter, Ronald et al. Telling tails: grammar, the spoken language and materials development. In Tomlinson, B. (ed). Material Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP. 1998/2011. Adaptado)