Questões de Concurso Público Colégio Pedro II 2019 para Professor - Inglês
Foram encontradas 25 questões
No que se refere aos seus dispositivos, é correto afirmar que
I. As revistas destinadas ao público infanto-juvenil não poderão conter ilustrações, fotografias ou anúncios de bebidas alcoólicas e tabaco, e deverão respeitar os valores éticos e sociais da família. II. O acesso ao ensino obrigatório é direito público subjetivo e o seu não oferecimento pelo poder público ou sua oferta irregular importa responsabilidade da autoridade competente. III. É dever das instituições de ensino, clubes e agremiações recreativas e de estabelecimentos congêneres assegurar medidas de conscientização e prevenção ao uso ou dependência de drogas ilícitas. IV. As instituições de ensino deverão atuar de forma articulada na execução de ações destinadas a coibir o uso de castigo físico ou de tratamento cruel e difundir formas não violentas de educação de crianças e de adolescentes.
Estão corretas
TEXT 1
School for sexism
By Deborah Cameron (Oxford University)
This week, it was announced that schools in England are being issued with new guidelines on combatting sexism and gender stereotyping. This initiative follows research conducted for the Institute of Physics (IoP), which found that most schools took sexism less seriously than other kinds of prejudice and discrimination. […]
The IoP’s main concern—one it shares with the government, which co-funded the research—is that girls are being deterred from studying science subjects by the sexist attitudes they encounter in school. Language is only one of the issues the report urges schools to tackle. […] But language was the main theme picked up in media reporting on the new guidelines, with many news outlets dramatically proclaiming that children ‘as young as five’ were going to be ‘banned’ from using certain words.
[…] I think we can guess why these newspapers were so keen on the language angle. They’ve known since the heyday of ‘political correctness gone mad’ that nothing stirs up the wrath of Middle England like a story about someone trying to ban words. Never mind that no sane parent permits total free expression for the under-fives […].
This reporting only underlined the point that sexism isn’t taken as seriously as other forms of prejudice. […] Rather than being outraged by the idea of telling primary school children to watch their words, shouldn’t we be asking why ‘children as young as five’ are using sexist language in the first place?
We may not want to think that this is happening among children still at primary school, but unfortunately the evidence says it is. […] Girl Guiding UK publishes an annual survey of girls’ attitudes: the 2015 survey, conducted with a sample of nearly 1600 girls and young women aged between 7 and 21, found that in the week before they were questioned, over 80% of respondents had experienced or witnessed some form of sexism, much of which was perpetrated by boys of their own age, and some of which undoubtedly occurred in school. 39% of respondents had been subjected to demeaning comments on their appearance, and 58% had heard comments or jokes belittling women and girls. […]
By the time they go to secondary school, girls are conscious of this everyday sexism as a factor which restricts their freedom, affecting where they feel they can go, what they feel able to wear and how much they are willing to talk in front of boys. In the Girl Guiding UK survey, a quarter of respondents aged 11-16 reported that they avoided speaking in lessons because of their fear of attracting sexist comments.
So, the Institute of Physics isn’t just being perverse when it identifies sexist ‘banter’ as a problem that affects girls’ education. It’s to the organization’s credit that it’s saying this shouldn’t be tolerated—and it’s also to its credit that it’s offering practical advice. Its recommendations are sensible, and its report contains many good ideas for teachers to consider. […]
When the Sunday Times talks about ‘boys and girls cheerfully baiting each other in the playground’, the implication is that we’re dealing with something reciprocal, a ‘battle of the sexes’ in which the two sides are evenly matched. But they’re not evenly matched. What can a girl say to a boy that will make him feel like a commodity, a piece of meat? What popular catchphrase can she fling at him that has the same dismissive force as ‘make me a sandwich’? […]
The IoP report does not seem to grasp that there is more to sexism than gender stereotyping. It falls back on the liberal argument that stereotyping harms both sexes equally: it’s as bad for the boy who wants to be a ballet dancer as it is for the girl who dreams of becoming an astrophysicist. But sexism doesn’t harm boys and girls equally, just as racism doesn’t harm white people and people of colour equally. It is the ideology of a system based on structural sexual inequality: male dominance and female subordination. You can’t address the problem of gender stereotyping effectively if you don’t acknowledge the larger power structure it is part of.
Disponível em: https://debuk.wordpress.com. Acesso em: 20 out. 2019.
TEXT 1
School for sexism
By Deborah Cameron (Oxford University)
This week, it was announced that schools in England are being issued with new guidelines on combatting sexism and gender stereotyping. This initiative follows research conducted for the Institute of Physics (IoP), which found that most schools took sexism less seriously than other kinds of prejudice and discrimination. […]
The IoP’s main concern—one it shares with the government, which co-funded the research—is that girls are being deterred from studying science subjects by the sexist attitudes they encounter in school. Language is only one of the issues the report urges schools to tackle. […] But language was the main theme picked up in media reporting on the new guidelines, with many news outlets dramatically proclaiming that children ‘as young as five’ were going to be ‘banned’ from using certain words.
[…] I think we can guess why these newspapers were so keen on the language angle. They’ve known since the heyday of ‘political correctness gone mad’ that nothing stirs up the wrath of Middle England like a story about someone trying to ban words. Never mind that no sane parent permits total free expression for the under-fives […].
This reporting only underlined the point that sexism isn’t taken as seriously as other forms of prejudice. […] Rather than being outraged by the idea of telling primary school children to watch their words, shouldn’t we be asking why ‘children as young as five’ are using sexist language in the first place?
We may not want to think that this is happening among children still at primary school, but unfortunately the evidence says it is. […] Girl Guiding UK publishes an annual survey of girls’ attitudes: the 2015 survey, conducted with a sample of nearly 1600 girls and young women aged between 7 and 21, found that in the week before they were questioned, over 80% of respondents had experienced or witnessed some form of sexism, much of which was perpetrated by boys of their own age, and some of which undoubtedly occurred in school. 39% of respondents had been subjected to demeaning comments on their appearance, and 58% had heard comments or jokes belittling women and girls. […]
By the time they go to secondary school, girls are conscious of this everyday sexism as a factor which restricts their freedom, affecting where they feel they can go, what they feel able to wear and how much they are willing to talk in front of boys. In the Girl Guiding UK survey, a quarter of respondents aged 11-16 reported that they avoided speaking in lessons because of their fear of attracting sexist comments.
So, the Institute of Physics isn’t just being perverse when it identifies sexist ‘banter’ as a problem that affects girls’ education. It’s to the organization’s credit that it’s saying this shouldn’t be tolerated—and it’s also to its credit that it’s offering practical advice. Its recommendations are sensible, and its report contains many good ideas for teachers to consider. […]
When the Sunday Times talks about ‘boys and girls cheerfully baiting each other in the playground’, the implication is that we’re dealing with something reciprocal, a ‘battle of the sexes’ in which the two sides are evenly matched. But they’re not evenly matched. What can a girl say to a boy that will make him feel like a commodity, a piece of meat? What popular catchphrase can she fling at him that has the same dismissive force as ‘make me a sandwich’? […]
The IoP report does not seem to grasp that there is more to sexism than gender stereotyping. It falls back on the liberal argument that stereotyping harms both sexes equally: it’s as bad for the boy who wants to be a ballet dancer as it is for the girl who dreams of becoming an astrophysicist. But sexism doesn’t harm boys and girls equally, just as racism doesn’t harm white people and people of colour equally. It is the ideology of a system based on structural sexual inequality: male dominance and female subordination. You can’t address the problem of gender stereotyping effectively if you don’t acknowledge the larger power structure it is part of.
Disponível em: https://debuk.wordpress.com. Acesso em: 20 out. 2019.
Assuming a sociointeractional viewpoint, Giesel (in FERREIRA, 2012) argues that all forms of discourse can be understood as a social product, since they are present in the experiences of students.
Regarding the position presented above, choose the quote below from Cameron’s text which might support the idea that language teachers should approach aspects of sexist language and gender stereotyping in their lessons.
TEXT 1
School for sexism
By Deborah Cameron (Oxford University)
This week, it was announced that schools in England are being issued with new guidelines on combatting sexism and gender stereotyping. This initiative follows research conducted for the Institute of Physics (IoP), which found that most schools took sexism less seriously than other kinds of prejudice and discrimination. […]
The IoP’s main concern—one it shares with the government, which co-funded the research—is that girls are being deterred from studying science subjects by the sexist attitudes they encounter in school. Language is only one of the issues the report urges schools to tackle. […] But language was the main theme picked up in media reporting on the new guidelines, with many news outlets dramatically proclaiming that children ‘as young as five’ were going to be ‘banned’ from using certain words.
[…] I think we can guess why these newspapers were so keen on the language angle. They’ve known since the heyday of ‘political correctness gone mad’ that nothing stirs up the wrath of Middle England like a story about someone trying to ban words. Never mind that no sane parent permits total free expression for the under-fives […].
This reporting only underlined the point that sexism isn’t taken as seriously as other forms of prejudice. […] Rather than being outraged by the idea of telling primary school children to watch their words, shouldn’t we be asking why ‘children as young as five’ are using sexist language in the first place?
We may not want to think that this is happening among children still at primary school, but unfortunately the evidence says it is. […] Girl Guiding UK publishes an annual survey of girls’ attitudes: the 2015 survey, conducted with a sample of nearly 1600 girls and young women aged between 7 and 21, found that in the week before they were questioned, over 80% of respondents had experienced or witnessed some form of sexism, much of which was perpetrated by boys of their own age, and some of which undoubtedly occurred in school. 39% of respondents had been subjected to demeaning comments on their appearance, and 58% had heard comments or jokes belittling women and girls. […]
By the time they go to secondary school, girls are conscious of this everyday sexism as a factor which restricts their freedom, affecting where they feel they can go, what they feel able to wear and how much they are willing to talk in front of boys. In the Girl Guiding UK survey, a quarter of respondents aged 11-16 reported that they avoided speaking in lessons because of their fear of attracting sexist comments.
So, the Institute of Physics isn’t just being perverse when it identifies sexist ‘banter’ as a problem that affects girls’ education. It’s to the organization’s credit that it’s saying this shouldn’t be tolerated—and it’s also to its credit that it’s offering practical advice. Its recommendations are sensible, and its report contains many good ideas for teachers to consider. […]
When the Sunday Times talks about ‘boys and girls cheerfully baiting each other in the playground’, the implication is that we’re dealing with something reciprocal, a ‘battle of the sexes’ in which the two sides are evenly matched. But they’re not evenly matched. What can a girl say to a boy that will make him feel like a commodity, a piece of meat? What popular catchphrase can she fling at him that has the same dismissive force as ‘make me a sandwich’? […]
The IoP report does not seem to grasp that there is more to sexism than gender stereotyping. It falls back on the liberal argument that stereotyping harms both sexes equally: it’s as bad for the boy who wants to be a ballet dancer as it is for the girl who dreams of becoming an astrophysicist. But sexism doesn’t harm boys and girls equally, just as racism doesn’t harm white people and people of colour equally. It is the ideology of a system based on structural sexual inequality: male dominance and female subordination. You can’t address the problem of gender stereotyping effectively if you don’t acknowledge the larger power structure it is part of.
Disponível em: https://debuk.wordpress.com. Acesso em: 20 out. 2019.
The following quote from Cameron’s article presents a standard passive construction, according to Parrott (2010): “This week, it was announced that schools in England are being issued with new guidelines on combatting sexism and gender stereotyping.”
Among the sentences below, choose the only one that follows a different pattern from standard passive constructions.
TEXT 1
School for sexism
By Deborah Cameron (Oxford University)
This week, it was announced that schools in England are being issued with new guidelines on combatting sexism and gender stereotyping. This initiative follows research conducted for the Institute of Physics (IoP), which found that most schools took sexism less seriously than other kinds of prejudice and discrimination. […]
The IoP’s main concern—one it shares with the government, which co-funded the research—is that girls are being deterred from studying science subjects by the sexist attitudes they encounter in school. Language is only one of the issues the report urges schools to tackle. […] But language was the main theme picked up in media reporting on the new guidelines, with many news outlets dramatically proclaiming that children ‘as young as five’ were going to be ‘banned’ from using certain words.
[…] I think we can guess why these newspapers were so keen on the language angle. They’ve known since the heyday of ‘political correctness gone mad’ that nothing stirs up the wrath of Middle England like a story about someone trying to ban words. Never mind that no sane parent permits total free expression for the under-fives […].
This reporting only underlined the point that sexism isn’t taken as seriously as other forms of prejudice. […] Rather than being outraged by the idea of telling primary school children to watch their words, shouldn’t we be asking why ‘children as young as five’ are using sexist language in the first place?
We may not want to think that this is happening among children still at primary school, but unfortunately the evidence says it is. […] Girl Guiding UK publishes an annual survey of girls’ attitudes: the 2015 survey, conducted with a sample of nearly 1600 girls and young women aged between 7 and 21, found that in the week before they were questioned, over 80% of respondents had experienced or witnessed some form of sexism, much of which was perpetrated by boys of their own age, and some of which undoubtedly occurred in school. 39% of respondents had been subjected to demeaning comments on their appearance, and 58% had heard comments or jokes belittling women and girls. […]
By the time they go to secondary school, girls are conscious of this everyday sexism as a factor which restricts their freedom, affecting where they feel they can go, what they feel able to wear and how much they are willing to talk in front of boys. In the Girl Guiding UK survey, a quarter of respondents aged 11-16 reported that they avoided speaking in lessons because of their fear of attracting sexist comments.
So, the Institute of Physics isn’t just being perverse when it identifies sexist ‘banter’ as a problem that affects girls’ education. It’s to the organization’s credit that it’s saying this shouldn’t be tolerated—and it’s also to its credit that it’s offering practical advice. Its recommendations are sensible, and its report contains many good ideas for teachers to consider. […]
When the Sunday Times talks about ‘boys and girls cheerfully baiting each other in the playground’, the implication is that we’re dealing with something reciprocal, a ‘battle of the sexes’ in which the two sides are evenly matched. But they’re not evenly matched. What can a girl say to a boy that will make him feel like a commodity, a piece of meat? What popular catchphrase can she fling at him that has the same dismissive force as ‘make me a sandwich’? […]
The IoP report does not seem to grasp that there is more to sexism than gender stereotyping. It falls back on the liberal argument that stereotyping harms both sexes equally: it’s as bad for the boy who wants to be a ballet dancer as it is for the girl who dreams of becoming an astrophysicist. But sexism doesn’t harm boys and girls equally, just as racism doesn’t harm white people and people of colour equally. It is the ideology of a system based on structural sexual inequality: male dominance and female subordination. You can’t address the problem of gender stereotyping effectively if you don’t acknowledge the larger power structure it is part of.
Disponível em: https://debuk.wordpress.com. Acesso em: 20 out. 2019.
TEXT 1
School for sexism
By Deborah Cameron (Oxford University)
This week, it was announced that schools in England are being issued with new guidelines on combatting sexism and gender stereotyping. This initiative follows research conducted for the Institute of Physics (IoP), which found that most schools took sexism less seriously than other kinds of prejudice and discrimination. […]
The IoP’s main concern—one it shares with the government, which co-funded the research—is that girls are being deterred from studying science subjects by the sexist attitudes they encounter in school. Language is only one of the issues the report urges schools to tackle. […] But language was the main theme picked up in media reporting on the new guidelines, with many news outlets dramatically proclaiming that children ‘as young as five’ were going to be ‘banned’ from using certain words.
[…] I think we can guess why these newspapers were so keen on the language angle. They’ve known since the heyday of ‘political correctness gone mad’ that nothing stirs up the wrath of Middle England like a story about someone trying to ban words. Never mind that no sane parent permits total free expression for the under-fives […].
This reporting only underlined the point that sexism isn’t taken as seriously as other forms of prejudice. […] Rather than being outraged by the idea of telling primary school children to watch their words, shouldn’t we be asking why ‘children as young as five’ are using sexist language in the first place?
We may not want to think that this is happening among children still at primary school, but unfortunately the evidence says it is. […] Girl Guiding UK publishes an annual survey of girls’ attitudes: the 2015 survey, conducted with a sample of nearly 1600 girls and young women aged between 7 and 21, found that in the week before they were questioned, over 80% of respondents had experienced or witnessed some form of sexism, much of which was perpetrated by boys of their own age, and some of which undoubtedly occurred in school. 39% of respondents had been subjected to demeaning comments on their appearance, and 58% had heard comments or jokes belittling women and girls. […]
By the time they go to secondary school, girls are conscious of this everyday sexism as a factor which restricts their freedom, affecting where they feel they can go, what they feel able to wear and how much they are willing to talk in front of boys. In the Girl Guiding UK survey, a quarter of respondents aged 11-16 reported that they avoided speaking in lessons because of their fear of attracting sexist comments.
So, the Institute of Physics isn’t just being perverse when it identifies sexist ‘banter’ as a problem that affects girls’ education. It’s to the organization’s credit that it’s saying this shouldn’t be tolerated—and it’s also to its credit that it’s offering practical advice. Its recommendations are sensible, and its report contains many good ideas for teachers to consider. […]
When the Sunday Times talks about ‘boys and girls cheerfully baiting each other in the playground’, the implication is that we’re dealing with something reciprocal, a ‘battle of the sexes’ in which the two sides are evenly matched. But they’re not evenly matched. What can a girl say to a boy that will make him feel like a commodity, a piece of meat? What popular catchphrase can she fling at him that has the same dismissive force as ‘make me a sandwich’? […]
The IoP report does not seem to grasp that there is more to sexism than gender stereotyping. It falls back on the liberal argument that stereotyping harms both sexes equally: it’s as bad for the boy who wants to be a ballet dancer as it is for the girl who dreams of becoming an astrophysicist. But sexism doesn’t harm boys and girls equally, just as racism doesn’t harm white people and people of colour equally. It is the ideology of a system based on structural sexual inequality: male dominance and female subordination. You can’t address the problem of gender stereotyping effectively if you don’t acknowledge the larger power structure it is part of.
Disponível em: https://debuk.wordpress.com. Acesso em: 20 out. 2019.
Select the sentence that best paraphrases the excerpt:
“Language is only one of the issues the report urges schools to tackle. […] But language was the main theme picked up in media reporting on the new guidelines”.
TEXT 1
School for sexism
By Deborah Cameron (Oxford University)
This week, it was announced that schools in England are being issued with new guidelines on combatting sexism and gender stereotyping. This initiative follows research conducted for the Institute of Physics (IoP), which found that most schools took sexism less seriously than other kinds of prejudice and discrimination. […]
The IoP’s main concern—one it shares with the government, which co-funded the research—is that girls are being deterred from studying science subjects by the sexist attitudes they encounter in school. Language is only one of the issues the report urges schools to tackle. […] But language was the main theme picked up in media reporting on the new guidelines, with many news outlets dramatically proclaiming that children ‘as young as five’ were going to be ‘banned’ from using certain words.
[…] I think we can guess why these newspapers were so keen on the language angle. They’ve known since the heyday of ‘political correctness gone mad’ that nothing stirs up the wrath of Middle England like a story about someone trying to ban words. Never mind that no sane parent permits total free expression for the under-fives […].
This reporting only underlined the point that sexism isn’t taken as seriously as other forms of prejudice. […] Rather than being outraged by the idea of telling primary school children to watch their words, shouldn’t we be asking why ‘children as young as five’ are using sexist language in the first place?
We may not want to think that this is happening among children still at primary school, but unfortunately the evidence says it is. […] Girl Guiding UK publishes an annual survey of girls’ attitudes: the 2015 survey, conducted with a sample of nearly 1600 girls and young women aged between 7 and 21, found that in the week before they were questioned, over 80% of respondents had experienced or witnessed some form of sexism, much of which was perpetrated by boys of their own age, and some of which undoubtedly occurred in school. 39% of respondents had been subjected to demeaning comments on their appearance, and 58% had heard comments or jokes belittling women and girls. […]
By the time they go to secondary school, girls are conscious of this everyday sexism as a factor which restricts their freedom, affecting where they feel they can go, what they feel able to wear and how much they are willing to talk in front of boys. In the Girl Guiding UK survey, a quarter of respondents aged 11-16 reported that they avoided speaking in lessons because of their fear of attracting sexist comments.
So, the Institute of Physics isn’t just being perverse when it identifies sexist ‘banter’ as a problem that affects girls’ education. It’s to the organization’s credit that it’s saying this shouldn’t be tolerated—and it’s also to its credit that it’s offering practical advice. Its recommendations are sensible, and its report contains many good ideas for teachers to consider. […]
When the Sunday Times talks about ‘boys and girls cheerfully baiting each other in the playground’, the implication is that we’re dealing with something reciprocal, a ‘battle of the sexes’ in which the two sides are evenly matched. But they’re not evenly matched. What can a girl say to a boy that will make him feel like a commodity, a piece of meat? What popular catchphrase can she fling at him that has the same dismissive force as ‘make me a sandwich’? […]
The IoP report does not seem to grasp that there is more to sexism than gender stereotyping. It falls back on the liberal argument that stereotyping harms both sexes equally: it’s as bad for the boy who wants to be a ballet dancer as it is for the girl who dreams of becoming an astrophysicist. But sexism doesn’t harm boys and girls equally, just as racism doesn’t harm white people and people of colour equally. It is the ideology of a system based on structural sexual inequality: male dominance and female subordination. You can’t address the problem of gender stereotyping effectively if you don’t acknowledge the larger power structure it is part of.
Disponível em: https://debuk.wordpress.com. Acesso em: 20 out. 2019.
Choose the group of synonyms which could respectively replace them.
Consider the excerpt “It’s to the organization’s credit that it’s saying that it shouldn’t be tolerated”.
The subjunctive mood has been correctly used to rephrase it in all the sentences, EXCEPT
Santos (2012) points out that a sociointeractional approach to learning occurs from the development of a context in which a more competent partner gives the learner the necessary support in the learning process, emphasizing the idea that the learning process is always mediated. Such mediation involves the interaction between teachers, students, resources and teaching materials. Still, on the relevant aspects of the sociointeractional approach to learning, the author mentions Vygotsky's notion that language is the most important mediating tool. Therefore, thinking, reading, writing, and talking about a specific topic have an important impact on our understanding of the world.
Thus, regarding the teaching and learning of reading from a sociointeractional perspective and the role strategies have in that process, it is possible to draw some conclusions. Read the conclusions below, decide which ones are in accordance with that approach and mark the most adequate answer A – D.
I. Developing learner strategies in the foreign language reading class implies that the learner will be at the centre and in control of the use of strategies, being the agent of his/her strategic decisions.
II. Since the 1990s, reading has come to be understood as a complex and dynamic activity that involves not only bottom-up and top-down cognitive processes, but also other contextual elements such as the reader's experience with other texts, the medium in which the text is written and the reader's decisions, as well as the reading strategies that he/she uses.
III. Successful readers often focus their attention on the general meaning of the text, but always use the dictionary when they encounter unfamiliar words. They also seek to break up word groups into single words to improve their comprehension.
IV. Activation of the student's prior knowledge of a subject, attention to the title of the text, its images, as well as typographic marks (font type, bold, italics, etc.) and identification of the textual genre are important pre-reading strategies that can lead the learner to formulate successful hypotheses about the text, making it easier to understand.
The correct option is
TEXT 2
“In spite of sharing Fairclough’s (1995/2010) view that the pedagogy of multiliteracies is situated in a critical language awareness perspective since its constructions parts from the problematization of work, citizenship and lifeworlds relations in the new global capitalism to propose the (re)design of meanings so as to account for the multiplicity of semiosis and lifestyles in contemporaneity, we can still notice that, in several aspects, the pedagogy designed by the New London Group legitimize some of the orders of discourse from this same capitalism it criticizes. Such a legitimation appears, for instance, in the comparison between teachers and managers used to define the notion of designer. It can also be noticed in the emphasis the Group places on the preparation for the labor market, even though the development of a metalanguage able to raise critical awareness about every practice is also emphasized. It is also worthwhile to highlight that the pedagogy of multiliteracies was thought as an educational alternative to respond to the “dramatic global economic change” we have been going through “as new business and management theories and practices emerge across the developed world” (NEW LONDON GROUP, 2000, p.10). Within this context, the fact of the multiliteracies pedagogy be constructed in the clash between legitimatizing and problematizing crystallized literacy practices from this developed world in the search of alternative life and educational designs becomes comprehensible.”
OLIVEIRA, M. B. F.; SZUNDI, P. T. C. Multiliteracies Practices at School: for a responsive education to contemporaneity.
Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, v. 9, n. 2, Jul./Dec. 2014, p. 202, 203.
According to the text, we may say that
TEXT 3
“Despite the contemporary calling of the speech/textual genre conceptions to deal with privations in the educational system (ROJO, 2008), the treatment given to genre, especially in theories operating with the notion of textual genre, has mainly focused on genre’s stable characteristics and on the development of competencies/capacities that lead to the comprehension and production of the oral and written genres circulating in the social world.
One of the implications of this kind of treatment for the literacy practices at school has considerably often been the genre displacement from micro and macrolinguistic contexts that interact in meaning construction to abstractly focus on the stable characteristics defining news, comics, recipes, editorial, blogs etc. Another, and maybe more serious, unfolding is that since it doesn’t look at how genres mingle and hybridize with other genres and semiosis in processes of constant (re)designing meanings, such a treatment can end up contributing to the mere (re)production of genres legitimized by school, leaving little or no space at all for the innovations and destabilization that mingling and transgression processes print to texts in contemporaneity and, as a consequence, for a critical position in relation to meanings constructed in the margins of what school validates as acceptable literacy practices.”
OLIVEIRA, M. B. F.; SZUNDI, P. T. C. Multiliteracies Practices at School: for a responsive education to contemporaneity.
Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, v. 9, n. 2, Jul./Dec. 2014, p. 206,207.
TEXT 3
“Despite the contemporary calling of the speech/textual genre conceptions to deal with privations in the educational system (ROJO, 2008), the treatment given to genre, especially in theories operating with the notion of textual genre, has mainly focused on genre’s stable characteristics and on the development of competencies/capacities that lead to the comprehension and production of the oral and written genres circulating in the social world.
One of the implications of this kind of treatment for the literacy practices at school has considerably often been the genre displacement from micro and macrolinguistic contexts that interact in meaning construction to abstractly focus on the stable characteristics defining news, comics, recipes, editorial, blogs etc. Another, and maybe more serious, unfolding is that since it doesn’t look at how genres mingle and hybridize with other genres and semiosis in processes of constant (re)designing meanings, such a treatment can end up contributing to the mere (re)production of genres legitimized by school, leaving little or no space at all for the innovations and destabilization that mingling and transgression processes print to texts in contemporaneity and, as a consequence, for a critical position in relation to meanings constructed in the margins of what school validates as acceptable literacy practices.”
OLIVEIRA, M. B. F.; SZUNDI, P. T. C. Multiliteracies Practices at School: for a responsive education to contemporaneity.
Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, v. 9, n. 2, Jul./Dec. 2014, p. 206,207.
TEXT 4
“It must be fairly obvious from the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs that the very concept of ‘World Englishes’ throws a number of challenges at all those of us who are in one way or another involved in it. For ELT professionals all over the world, it means, among other things, having to take a fresh look at many of the things that have been taken for granted for long.
Consider, for instance, the following. World English is not the mother-tongue of anyone – and this includes even those who used to rejoice in their status as the ‘native-speakers’ of their own varieties of English. This is so because World English is a language that is in the making and, from the looks of it is bound to remain so for the foreseeable future. Incidentally, any temptation to consider World English a pidgin would be totally misguided in that it is not a make-shift language, nor one that is progressing towards a full-fledged language in its own right. Nor, for that matter, is it gathering a new generation of native speakers. Rather, it is resistant to the very terminology that the linguists resort to in describing conventional ‘natural’ languages.”
RAJAGOPALAN, K. The identity of "World English”: New Challenges in Language and Literature. Belo Horizonte: FALE/UFMG, 2009, p.104.
TEXT 4
“It must be fairly obvious from the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs that the very concept of ‘World Englishes’ throws a number of challenges at all those of us who are in one way or another involved in it. For ELT professionals all over the world, it means, among other things, having to take a fresh look at many of the things that have been taken for granted for long.
Consider, for instance, the following. World English is not the mother-tongue of anyone – and this includes even those who used to rejoice in their status as the ‘native-speakers’ of their own varieties of English. This is so because World English is a language that is in the making and, from the looks of it is bound to remain so for the foreseeable future. Incidentally, any temptation to consider World English a pidgin would be totally misguided in that it is not a make-shift language, nor one that is progressing towards a full-fledged language in its own right. Nor, for that matter, is it gathering a new generation of native speakers. Rather, it is resistant to the very terminology that the linguists resort to in describing conventional ‘natural’ languages.”
RAJAGOPALAN, K. The identity of "World English”: New Challenges in Language and Literature. Belo Horizonte: FALE/UFMG, 2009, p.104.
TEXT 5
“In other words, there are those among us who argue that the future of English is dependent on the likelihood or otherwise of the U.S. continuing to play its hegemonic role in world affairs. Since that possibility seems uncertain to many, especially in view of the much-talked-of ascendancy of emergent economies, many are of the opinion that English will soon lose much of its current glitter and cease to be what it is today, namely a world language. And there are those amongst us who further speculate that, in fifty or a hundred years’ time, we will all have acquired fluency in, say, Mandarin, or, if we haven’t, will be longing to learn it. […] Consider the following argument: a language such as English can only be claimed to have attained an international status to the very extent it has ceased to be national, i.e., the exclusive property of this or that nation in particular (Widdowson). In other words, the U.K. or the U.S.A. or whosoever cannot have it both ways. If they do concede that English is today a world language, then it only behooves them to also recognize that it is not their exclusive property, as painful as this might indeed turn out to be. In other words, it is part of the price they have to pay for seeing their language elevated to the status of a world language. Now, the key word here is “elevated”. It is precisely in the process of getting elevated to a world status that English or what I insist on referring to as the “World English” goes through a process of metamorphosis.”
RAJAGOPALAN, K. The identity of "World English”. New Challenges in Language and Literature. Belo Horizonte: FALE/UFMG, 2009, p. 99-100.
TEXT 5
“In other words, there are those among us who argue that the future of English is dependent on the likelihood or otherwise of the U.S. continuing to play its hegemonic role in world affairs. Since that possibility seems uncertain to many, especially in view of the much-talked-of ascendancy of emergent economies, many are of the opinion that English will soon lose much of its current glitter and cease to be what it is today, namely a world language. And there are those amongst us who further speculate that, in fifty or a hundred years’ time, we will all have acquired fluency in, say, Mandarin, or, if we haven’t, will be longing to learn it. […] Consider the following argument: a language such as English can only be claimed to have attained an international status to the very extent it has ceased to be national, i.e., the exclusive property of this or that nation in particular (Widdowson). In other words, the U.K. or the U.S.A. or whosoever cannot have it both ways. If they do concede that English is today a world language, then it only behooves them to also recognize that it is not their exclusive property, as painful as this might indeed turn out to be. In other words, it is part of the price they have to pay for seeing their language elevated to the status of a world language. Now, the key word here is “elevated”. It is precisely in the process of getting elevated to a world status that English or what I insist on referring to as the “World English” goes through a process of metamorphosis.”
RAJAGOPALAN, K. The identity of "World English”. New Challenges in Language and Literature. Belo Horizonte: FALE/UFMG, 2009, p. 99-100.
Conheça nossos planos