Questões de Concurso
Sobre aspectos linguísticos | linguistic aspects em inglês
Foram encontradas 798 questões
TEXT 1
Why 'Run' Is The Most Complex Word in the English Language
BY EMILY PETSKO
English can be hard for other language speakers to learn. To use just one example, there are at least eight different ways of expressing events in the future, and conditional tenses are another matter entirely. For evidence of the many nuances and inconsistencies of the English tongue, look no further than this tricky poem penned in 1920. (For a sample: “Hiccough has the sound of cup. My advice is to give up!”)
As author Simon Winchester wrote for The New York Times, there’s one English word in particular that’s deceptively simple: run. As a verb, it boasts a record-setting 645 definitions. Peter Gilliver, a lexicographer and associate editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, spent nine months sussing out its many shades of meaning.
“You might think this word simply means ‘to go with quick steps on alternate feet, never having both or (in the case of many animals) all feet on the ground at the same time,’” Winchester writes. “But no such luck: that is merely sense, and there are miles to go before the reader of this particular entry may sleep.”
This wasn’t always the case, though. When the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary was published in 1928, the word with the most definitions was set. However, the word put later outpaced it, and run eventually overtook them both as the English language's most complex word. Winchester thinks this evolution is partly due to advancements in technology (for instance, “a train runs on tracks” and “an iPad runs apps”).
He believes the widespread use of run—and its intricate web of meanings—is also a reflection of our times. “It is a feature of our more sort of energetic and frantic times that set and put seem, in a peculiar way, sort of rather stodgy, rather conservative,” Gilliver told NPR in an interview.
So the next time you tell your boss you "want to run an idea" by them, know that you’re unconsciously expressing your enthusiasm— as well as all the other subtleties wrapped up in run that previous words like set failed to capture.
(Available in: http://mentalfloss.com/article/582820/run-most-complex-word-in-english-language. Accessed on May 17th, 2019. Adapted.)
Assessing learners’ oral skills are considered as a crucial process in most EFL teaching and learning programs. However, it can be challenging for teachers to make a valid, reliable, and fair assessment. This study aimed to investigate Saudi college students’ and teachers’ point of views toward the effectiveness of oral assessment techniques used to assess learners speaking-skills in the EFL classroom. Two different questionnaires were administered to 12 EFL teachers and forty-two students’ who are majoring in English at the Languages and Translation College at King Saud University. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from respondents, treated statistically, analyzed and revealed in the following sections. The findings of the study revealed that EFL teachers are using a variety of communicative oral assessment techniques and are utilizing effective assessment procedures in assessing their students’ speaking skills. For students, the results revealed that students are generally satisfied with the assessment techniques and procedures that, teachers use in assessing their language performance. Recommendations and suggestions are offered for all concerned parties.
(Available in:
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/0/390
Accessed on May 16th, 2019. Adapted.)
Texto 04
Gottman, John. The Relationship Cure. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Strengthening Relationships at Work
There is a number of things managers can do to strengthen relationships with workers. Strengthening connections with workers can lead to a win-win situation, in that workers may feel respected and valued, and can become much more engaged and productive in their work. And, managers may find that it is much easier to deal with a worker’s negative emotions or psychological health struggles when the foundation of their relationship with the worker is strong.
We can effectively build connections with workers by verbally or nonverbally seeking contact with them (i.e., making what psychologist Dr. John Gottman calls “connection bids”). A connection bid is an attempt to create connections between two people, and is essential for building, maintaining and improving relationships. A connection bid can be anything that we do to seek contact with another person:
- Asking for information: e.g., asking a worker how to solve a work problem. “Would you mind helping me with interpreting this spreadsheet? I’m struggling to get my head around the numbers.”
- Showing interest: e.g., asking workers about their hobbies or recent holidays. “Have you been doing any hiking lately?”
- Expressing affirmation and approval: e.g., complimenting a worker on his latest accomplishment. “Your presentation yesterday was excellent!”
- Expressing caring or support: e.g., demonstrating concern about a worker’s health condition. “Your cough sounds awful. You should think about going home to recover.”
- Offering assistance: e.g., offering support to a worker who is overloaded with tasks. “Would you like me to ask Jocelyn to help you with that project?”
- Making a humorous comment: e.g., lighthearted joking with a worker about a mistake you made. “Sometimes the hurrier I go, the behinder I get!”
- Sending non-verbal signals: e.g., a smile, a wink, a wave, a pat on the back or a thumbs up.
[…]
The way we respond to workers has a sizable impact on the nature of the relationships that result. If we repeatedly turn against or turn away from workers, they may eventually stop reaching out. On the contrary, if we turn toward a person as often as we can, the relationship can be strengthened and become more positive and supportive.
(Disponível em: www.workplacestrategiesformentalhealth.com/mmhm)
Texto 04
Gottman, John. The Relationship Cure. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Strengthening Relationships at Work
There is a number of things managers can do to strengthen relationships with workers. Strengthening connections with workers can lead to a win-win situation, in that workers may feel respected and valued, and can become much more engaged and productive in their work. And, managers may find that it is much easier to deal with a worker’s negative emotions or psychological health struggles when the foundation of their relationship with the worker is strong.
We can effectively build connections with workers by verbally or nonverbally seeking contact with them (i.e., making what psychologist Dr. John Gottman calls “connection bids”). A connection bid is an attempt to create connections between two people, and is essential for building, maintaining and improving relationships. A connection bid can be anything that we do to seek contact with another person:
- Asking for information: e.g., asking a worker how to solve a work problem. “Would you mind helping me with interpreting this spreadsheet? I’m struggling to get my head around the numbers.”
- Showing interest: e.g., asking workers about their hobbies or recent holidays. “Have you been doing any hiking lately?”
- Expressing affirmation and approval: e.g., complimenting a worker on his latest accomplishment. “Your presentation yesterday was excellent!”
- Expressing caring or support: e.g., demonstrating concern about a worker’s health condition. “Your cough sounds awful. You should think about going home to recover.”
- Offering assistance: e.g., offering support to a worker who is overloaded with tasks. “Would you like me to ask Jocelyn to help you with that project?”
- Making a humorous comment: e.g., lighthearted joking with a worker about a mistake you made. “Sometimes the hurrier I go, the behinder I get!”
- Sending non-verbal signals: e.g., a smile, a wink, a wave, a pat on the back or a thumbs up.
[…]
The way we respond to workers has a sizable impact on the nature of the relationships that result. If we repeatedly turn against or turn away from workers, they may eventually stop reaching out. On the contrary, if we turn toward a person as often as we can, the relationship can be strengthened and become more positive and supportive.
(Disponível em: www.workplacestrategiesformentalhealth.com/mmhm)
Texto 02
Standard Englishes and World Englishes: Living with a Polymorph Business Language
By Jeanette Gilsdorf
Many who teach business communication observe gradual changes in Standard English. As do other languages, English changes through contact with other languages and through several other wellunderstood avenues of language evolution, such as compounding, adding affixes, functional shift, coinage, and so on. As the third millennium begins, new factors are converging to influence Standard English: U.S. work environments are becoming more richly intercultural, newcomers to the United States are increasing their fluency in English, and international business is using English increasingly as a global language of business. Throughout these remarks, my perspective is that of a native-born Anglo-American speaker of English. Speakers of other Englishes will have different but comparable perspectives.
Helping my English as Second Language (L2) students gradually master English, I’ve seen my practical understanding of L2 learning grow, along with my respect for the major language task these students have taken on. I’ve also sensed Americans’ unmerited good luck that English has become the language of international business. Yet the internationality of English is to us a mixed blessing because of our presumptions about what comes with it. As Dennett says, “English may be the language of the global village but the villagers are far from agreement on what is good use of the language” (1992, p. 13). Many communicators mistakenly assume a commonality of understanding when both speakers use the same English words. We know that even two speakers born to the same language experience only approximate commonality of meaning; yet we routinely forget to compensate for that fact and end up with cases of bypassing. Internationally, the commonality of understanding can be far more sketchy, and the contextual issues much more complex, than most of us realize.
A truism says that staying with good Standard English will hold problems to a minimum. But what is Standard English, and what is the place of Standard English in teaching business communication in contexts that are more and more international? How, as teachers, do we make our peace with the multiple, competing standards and values affecting what is “acceptable English”? These questions trouble us in part because business persons approve of others’ use of English—or disparage it— depending on their view of what English is and what it’s supposed to be used for. Most U.S. business persons say that they expect people who work for them to be highly competent in Standard English. It seems a simple issue to these business persons. To teachers it is far from simple.
[…]
(Disponível em http://web.csulb.edu/~gilsdorf/st%20eng%20world%20eng%20jbc.htm / Journal of Business Communication, volume 39, number 3, July 2002, pages 364-378).
Texto 02
Standard Englishes and World Englishes: Living with a Polymorph Business Language
By Jeanette Gilsdorf
Many who teach business communication observe gradual changes in Standard English. As do other languages, English changes through contact with other languages and through several other wellunderstood avenues of language evolution, such as compounding, adding affixes, functional shift, coinage, and so on. As the third millennium begins, new factors are converging to influence Standard English: U.S. work environments are becoming more richly intercultural, newcomers to the United States are increasing their fluency in English, and international business is using English increasingly as a global language of business. Throughout these remarks, my perspective is that of a native-born Anglo-American speaker of English. Speakers of other Englishes will have different but comparable perspectives.
Helping my English as Second Language (L2) students gradually master English, I’ve seen my practical understanding of L2 learning grow, along with my respect for the major language task these students have taken on. I’ve also sensed Americans’ unmerited good luck that English has become the language of international business. Yet the internationality of English is to us a mixed blessing because of our presumptions about what comes with it. As Dennett says, “English may be the language of the global village but the villagers are far from agreement on what is good use of the language” (1992, p. 13). Many communicators mistakenly assume a commonality of understanding when both speakers use the same English words. We know that even two speakers born to the same language experience only approximate commonality of meaning; yet we routinely forget to compensate for that fact and end up with cases of bypassing. Internationally, the commonality of understanding can be far more sketchy, and the contextual issues much more complex, than most of us realize.
A truism says that staying with good Standard English will hold problems to a minimum. But what is Standard English, and what is the place of Standard English in teaching business communication in contexts that are more and more international? How, as teachers, do we make our peace with the multiple, competing standards and values affecting what is “acceptable English”? These questions trouble us in part because business persons approve of others’ use of English—or disparage it— depending on their view of what English is and what it’s supposed to be used for. Most U.S. business persons say that they expect people who work for them to be highly competent in Standard English. It seems a simple issue to these business persons. To teachers it is far from simple.
[…]
(Disponível em http://web.csulb.edu/~gilsdorf/st%20eng%20world%20eng%20jbc.htm / Journal of Business Communication, volume 39, number 3, July 2002, pages 364-378).
Texto 01
Going Mobile, Going Further!
By Anderson Francisco Guimarães Maia – October 28, 2016
So what happens to “learning” if we add the word “mobile” to it? The increasing and rapidly developing use of mobile technology by English language learners is an unquestionable aspect of today’s classroom. However, the attitude EFL teachers develop towards the use of mobile devices as an aid for language teaching varies greatly.
The unique benefits of mobile learning for EFL teachers include the ability to bridge formal and informal learning, which for language learners may be realized through supplementary out-of-classroom practice, translation support when communicating with target language speakers and the capture of difficulties and discoveries which can be instantly shared as well as being brought back into the classroom. Mobile learning can deliver, supplement and extend formal language learning; or it can be the primary way for learners to explore a target language informally and direct their own development through immediacy of encounter and challenge within a social setting. We still miss sufficient explicit connection between these two modes of learning, one of which is mainly formal and the other informal. Consequently, there are missed opportunities in terms of mutual benefit: formal education remains somewhat detached from rapid socio-technological change, and informal learning is frequently sidelined or ignored when it could be used as a resource and a way to discover more about evolving personal and social motivations for learning.
One example of how mobile devices can bridge formal and informal learning is through instantmessaging applications. Both synchronous and asynchronous activities can be developed for language practice outside the classroom. For example, in a discussion group on Whatsapp, students can discuss short videos, practice vocabulary with picture collages, share recent news, create captions and punch lines for memes, and take turns to create a multimodal story. Teachers can also create applications specifically to practice new vocabulary and grammar to support classroom learning.
Digital and mobile media are changing and extending language use to new environments as well as creating opportunities to learn in different ways. Mobile technology enables us to get physically closer to social contexts of language use which will ultimately influence the ways that language is used and learned. Therefore, let us incorporate mobile learning into our EFL lessons and literally “have the world in our hands”.
(Disponível em http://www.richmondshare.com.br/going-mobile-going-further/)
Texto 01
Going Mobile, Going Further!
By Anderson Francisco Guimarães Maia – October 28, 2016
So what happens to “learning” if we add the word “mobile” to it? The increasing and rapidly developing use of mobile technology by English language learners is an unquestionable aspect of today’s classroom. However, the attitude EFL teachers develop towards the use of mobile devices as an aid for language teaching varies greatly.
The unique benefits of mobile learning for EFL teachers include the ability to bridge formal and informal learning, which for language learners may be realized through supplementary out-of-classroom practice, translation support when communicating with target language speakers and the capture of difficulties and discoveries which can be instantly shared as well as being brought back into the classroom. Mobile learning can deliver, supplement and extend formal language learning; or it can be the primary way for learners to explore a target language informally and direct their own development through immediacy of encounter and challenge within a social setting. We still miss sufficient explicit connection between these two modes of learning, one of which is mainly formal and the other informal. Consequently, there are missed opportunities in terms of mutual benefit: formal education remains somewhat detached from rapid socio-technological change, and informal learning is frequently sidelined or ignored when it could be used as a resource and a way to discover more about evolving personal and social motivations for learning.
One example of how mobile devices can bridge formal and informal learning is through instantmessaging applications. Both synchronous and asynchronous activities can be developed for language practice outside the classroom. For example, in a discussion group on Whatsapp, students can discuss short videos, practice vocabulary with picture collages, share recent news, create captions and punch lines for memes, and take turns to create a multimodal story. Teachers can also create applications specifically to practice new vocabulary and grammar to support classroom learning.
Digital and mobile media are changing and extending language use to new environments as well as creating opportunities to learn in different ways. Mobile technology enables us to get physically closer to social contexts of language use which will ultimately influence the ways that language is used and learned. Therefore, let us incorporate mobile learning into our EFL lessons and literally “have the world in our hands”.
(Disponível em http://www.richmondshare.com.br/going-mobile-going-further/)
Read the excert from HUTCHINSON & WATERS (1987) about the ESP origin:
“As with most developments in human activity, ESP was not a planned and coherent movement, but rather a phenomenon that grew out of a number of converging trends. These trends have operated in a variety of ways around the world, but we can identify three main reasons common to the emerge of all ESP.”
Taking into consideration HUTCHINSON & WATERS assumptions, what are the three main reasons for ESP emergence?
According to BROWN (2007):
“As students work together in pairs and groups, they share information and come to each others’ aid. They are a ‘team’ whose players must work together in order to achieve goals successfully.”
Taking into consideration the above passage it is possible to state that the authors refer to
According to Anthony’s model, approach is the level at which assumptions and beliefs about language and language learning are specified; method is the level at which theory is put into practice and at which choices are made about the particular skills to be taught, the content to be taught, and the order in which the content will be presented; technique is the level at which classroom procedures are described (RICHARDS and RODGERS, 2001).
Richards and Rodgers (2001) criticism concerning Anthony’s (1963) definition of approach, method and technique which resulted in the authors new model resides in:
Read the excerpt from Anthony (1963) apud Richards and Rodgers (2001):
“…An approach is a set of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature of language teaching and learning. An approach is axiomatic. It describes the nature of the subject matter to be taught… …
... Method is an overall plan for the orderly presentation of language material, no part of which contradicts, and all of which is based upon, the selected approach. An approach is axiomatic, a method is procedural.
Within one approach, there can be many methods…”
Considering the excerpt and the nature of approaches and methods in English teaching, it is correct to say that:
Given that communicative competence is the goal of a language classroom, instruction needs to point toward all its components: organizational, pragmatic, strategic, and psychomotor. Communicative goals are best achieved by giving due attention to language use and not just usage, to fluency and not just accuracy, to authentic language and contexts, and to students’ eventual need to apply classroom learning to previously unrehearsed contexts in the real world (BROWN, 2007).
Considering Communicative Competence as a reference, it is correct to state that:
The aim of this particular model is to provide a coherent framework for the integration of the various aspects of learning, while at the same time allowing enough room for creativity and variety to florish. The model consists of four elements: input, content focus, language focus, task (HUTCHINSON and WATERS,1987).
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) present a material design model based on four elements: input, content, language and task. According to the authors, the primary focus of the unit is:
[this domain] deals with the way in which utterences are interpreted in context, and the ways in which the utterences of a particular sentence in a certain context may convey a message that is not actually expressed in the sentence and in other contexts might not have been conveyed. (HUDDLESTON and PULLUM, 2002).
The previous passage is a definition of:
Regarding to questioning strategies for interactive learning, there are many ways to classify what kind of questions are effective in the classroom, beginning with display questions to highly referential ones. Asking a lot of questions in classroom does not guarantee stimulation of interaction, for that reason, knowing how to apply the appropriate question in order to achieve a previous fixed objective is of great importance (BROWN, 2007).
Considering the statement above, choose the alternative that properly presents: (1) a question category (2) its explanation and (3) a correct example of it.
Almeida Filho (2005) illustrates in figure 1:
Read the excerpt from TOMLINSON (2011) “Ideally language learners should have strong and consistent motivation and they should also have positive feelings towards the target language, their teachers, their fellow learners and the materials they are using. But, of course, ideal learners do not exist and even if they did exist one day, they would no longer be ideal learners the next day. Each class of learners using the same materials will differ from each other in terms of long- and short-term motivation and of feelings and attitudes about the language, their teachers, their fellow learners and their learning materials, and of attitudes towards the language, the teacher and the materials. Obviously no materials developer can cater for all these affective variables, but it is important for anybody who is writing learning materials to be aware of the inevitable attitudinal differences of the users of the materials.”
What can be concluded from the text about
materials to teach languages is that their developers
should take into account that:
Conheça nossos planos