Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 48 e 49.

Mas, afinal, qual é a importância a ser dada ao ensino da pronúncia? Houve, com a abordagem comunicativa, uma mudança na visão do ensino de pronúncia, que sempre fora tão privilegiada. Passou-se a uma eficácia comunicativa que já não tinha como principal objetivo a proximidade com a pronúncia do falante nativo, ou a necessidade de ser por ele compreendido. O desafio, para os professores de língua estrangeira, é pensar em como planejar o ensino de fonética com um objetivo adequado para as necessidades dos aprendizes. (...) Devemos repensar o ensino de acordo com o objetivo de quem aprende uma segunda língua (no caso, o inglês, considerado língua internacional), objetivo este que, hoje em dia, está na capacidade de comunicação, não mais de comunicação com o falante nativo, como anteriormente, mas com outro falante, que também usa o inglês para se comunicar.

(ABREU, Lília Santos. “A pronúncia no ensino de língua estrangeira:

uma visão histórica”. In: M.A.A. Celani (org.). Ensino de segunda língua:

redescobrindo as origens. São Paulo:EDUC. 1997. p 51-2. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 48 e 49.

Mas, afinal, qual é a importância a ser dada ao ensino da pronúncia? Houve, com a abordagem comunicativa, uma mudança na visão do ensino de pronúncia, que sempre fora tão privilegiada. Passou-se a uma eficácia comunicativa que já não tinha como principal objetivo a proximidade com a pronúncia do falante nativo, ou a necessidade de ser por ele compreendido. O desafio, para os professores de língua estrangeira, é pensar em como planejar o ensino de fonética com um objetivo adequado para as necessidades dos aprendizes. (...) Devemos repensar o ensino de acordo com o objetivo de quem aprende uma segunda língua (no caso, o inglês, considerado língua internacional), objetivo este que, hoje em dia, está na capacidade de comunicação, não mais de comunicação com o falante nativo, como anteriormente, mas com outro falante, que também usa o inglês para se comunicar.

(ABREU, Lília Santos. “A pronúncia no ensino de língua estrangeira:

uma visão histórica”. In: M.A.A. Celani (org.). Ensino de segunda língua:

redescobrindo as origens. São Paulo:EDUC. 1997. p 51-2. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 40 a 47.

Language is, of course, the central subject matter for language teachers. A syllabus defines the content of a teaching programme, that is, it is concerned with what is to be learned. It was in the early 70’s that language teaching underwent something of a revolution.

Structures

This word, once central to all language teaching, is now somewhat out of fashion. It is most often employed to talk about structural syllabuses. Language teaching was based on the assumption that students first needed to master particular sentence frames – structures. The structures which were, and to a certain extent still are, perceived as central to language teaching were precisely, and exclusively, those of well-formed English sentences. To many teachers, a structural syllabus is synonymous with mastering the tense system of the English verb. Structure is still frequently equated with grammar, and grammar is still frequently equated with sentence grammar.

Functions

This term was introduced into language teaching relatively few decades ago. It was coined by Wilkins and can be very simply defined: a function is the social purpose of an utterance. If we ask the question “Why did the speaker say that?”, the answer will come in the form of a function – the speaker was making a request, offering to help, refusing an invitation etc. Most language teachers are very familiar with such labels, which frequently represent units in the textbook.

Functions represented a major change in syllabus design. They are, in the technical sense, pragmatic in character, being concerned with the social purpose of the utterance. Previously, strict structural sequencing tended to prevail. Nowadays, it is a commonplace that sentences such as “Would you like a cup of tea?” can be introduced early in a learning programme, without structural analysis. This was not so before the influence of pragmatics was felt. The change has considerable relevance in present-day discussions, and it has been argued that institutionalised sentences and lexical phrases can be introduced in the early stages of learning without analysis, to a much greater extent than has hitherto been the practice.

(Michael Lewis. The lexical approach. HeinleCengage. 2002. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 40 a 47.

Language is, of course, the central subject matter for language teachers. A syllabus defines the content of a teaching programme, that is, it is concerned with what is to be learned. It was in the early 70’s that language teaching underwent something of a revolution.

Structures

This word, once central to all language teaching, is now somewhat out of fashion. It is most often employed to talk about structural syllabuses. Language teaching was based on the assumption that students first needed to master particular sentence frames – structures. The structures which were, and to a certain extent still are, perceived as central to language teaching were precisely, and exclusively, those of well-formed English sentences. To many teachers, a structural syllabus is synonymous with mastering the tense system of the English verb. Structure is still frequently equated with grammar, and grammar is still frequently equated with sentence grammar.

Functions

This term was introduced into language teaching relatively few decades ago. It was coined by Wilkins and can be very simply defined: a function is the social purpose of an utterance. If we ask the question “Why did the speaker say that?”, the answer will come in the form of a function – the speaker was making a request, offering to help, refusing an invitation etc. Most language teachers are very familiar with such labels, which frequently represent units in the textbook.

Functions represented a major change in syllabus design. They are, in the technical sense, pragmatic in character, being concerned with the social purpose of the utterance. Previously, strict structural sequencing tended to prevail. Nowadays, it is a commonplace that sentences such as “Would you like a cup of tea?” can be introduced early in a learning programme, without structural analysis. This was not so before the influence of pragmatics was felt. The change has considerable relevance in present-day discussions, and it has been argued that institutionalised sentences and lexical phrases can be introduced in the early stages of learning without analysis, to a much greater extent than has hitherto been the practice.

(Michael Lewis. The lexical approach. HeinleCengage. 2002. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 40 a 47.

Language is, of course, the central subject matter for language teachers. A syllabus defines the content of a teaching programme, that is, it is concerned with what is to be learned. It was in the early 70’s that language teaching underwent something of a revolution.

Structures

This word, once central to all language teaching, is now somewhat out of fashion. It is most often employed to talk about structural syllabuses. Language teaching was based on the assumption that students first needed to master particular sentence frames – structures. The structures which were, and to a certain extent still are, perceived as central to language teaching were precisely, and exclusively, those of well-formed English sentences. To many teachers, a structural syllabus is synonymous with mastering the tense system of the English verb. Structure is still frequently equated with grammar, and grammar is still frequently equated with sentence grammar.

Functions

This term was introduced into language teaching relatively few decades ago. It was coined by Wilkins and can be very simply defined: a function is the social purpose of an utterance. If we ask the question “Why did the speaker say that?”, the answer will come in the form of a function – the speaker was making a request, offering to help, refusing an invitation etc. Most language teachers are very familiar with such labels, which frequently represent units in the textbook.

Functions represented a major change in syllabus design. They are, in the technical sense, pragmatic in character, being concerned with the social purpose of the utterance. Previously, strict structural sequencing tended to prevail. Nowadays, it is a commonplace that sentences such as “Would you like a cup of tea?” can be introduced early in a learning programme, without structural analysis. This was not so before the influence of pragmatics was felt. The change has considerable relevance in present-day discussions, and it has been argued that institutionalised sentences and lexical phrases can be introduced in the early stages of learning without analysis, to a much greater extent than has hitherto been the practice.

(Michael Lewis. The lexical approach. HeinleCengage. 2002. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 40 a 47.

Language is, of course, the central subject matter for language teachers. A syllabus defines the content of a teaching programme, that is, it is concerned with what is to be learned. It was in the early 70’s that language teaching underwent something of a revolution.

Structures

This word, once central to all language teaching, is now somewhat out of fashion. It is most often employed to talk about structural syllabuses. Language teaching was based on the assumption that students first needed to master particular sentence frames – structures. The structures which were, and to a certain extent still are, perceived as central to language teaching were precisely, and exclusively, those of well-formed English sentences. To many teachers, a structural syllabus is synonymous with mastering the tense system of the English verb. Structure is still frequently equated with grammar, and grammar is still frequently equated with sentence grammar.

Functions

This term was introduced into language teaching relatively few decades ago. It was coined by Wilkins and can be very simply defined: a function is the social purpose of an utterance. If we ask the question “Why did the speaker say that?”, the answer will come in the form of a function – the speaker was making a request, offering to help, refusing an invitation etc. Most language teachers are very familiar with such labels, which frequently represent units in the textbook.

Functions represented a major change in syllabus design. They are, in the technical sense, pragmatic in character, being concerned with the social purpose of the utterance. Previously, strict structural sequencing tended to prevail. Nowadays, it is a commonplace that sentences such as “Would you like a cup of tea?” can be introduced early in a learning programme, without structural analysis. This was not so before the influence of pragmatics was felt. The change has considerable relevance in present-day discussions, and it has been argued that institutionalised sentences and lexical phrases can be introduced in the early stages of learning without analysis, to a much greater extent than has hitherto been the practice.

(Michael Lewis. The lexical approach. HeinleCengage. 2002. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 40 a 47.

Language is, of course, the central subject matter for language teachers. A syllabus defines the content of a teaching programme, that is, it is concerned with what is to be learned. It was in the early 70’s that language teaching underwent something of a revolution.

Structures

This word, once central to all language teaching, is now somewhat out of fashion. It is most often employed to talk about structural syllabuses. Language teaching was based on the assumption that students first needed to master particular sentence frames – structures. The structures which were, and to a certain extent still are, perceived as central to language teaching were precisely, and exclusively, those of well-formed English sentences. To many teachers, a structural syllabus is synonymous with mastering the tense system of the English verb. Structure is still frequently equated with grammar, and grammar is still frequently equated with sentence grammar.

Functions

This term was introduced into language teaching relatively few decades ago. It was coined by Wilkins and can be very simply defined: a function is the social purpose of an utterance. If we ask the question “Why did the speaker say that?”, the answer will come in the form of a function – the speaker was making a request, offering to help, refusing an invitation etc. Most language teachers are very familiar with such labels, which frequently represent units in the textbook.

Functions represented a major change in syllabus design. They are, in the technical sense, pragmatic in character, being concerned with the social purpose of the utterance. Previously, strict structural sequencing tended to prevail. Nowadays, it is a commonplace that sentences such as “Would you like a cup of tea?” can be introduced early in a learning programme, without structural analysis. This was not so before the influence of pragmatics was felt. The change has considerable relevance in present-day discussions, and it has been argued that institutionalised sentences and lexical phrases can be introduced in the early stages of learning without analysis, to a much greater extent than has hitherto been the practice.

(Michael Lewis. The lexical approach. HeinleCengage. 2002. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 40 a 47.

Language is, of course, the central subject matter for language teachers. A syllabus defines the content of a teaching programme, that is, it is concerned with what is to be learned. It was in the early 70’s that language teaching underwent something of a revolution.

Structures

This word, once central to all language teaching, is now somewhat out of fashion. It is most often employed to talk about structural syllabuses. Language teaching was based on the assumption that students first needed to master particular sentence frames – structures. The structures which were, and to a certain extent still are, perceived as central to language teaching were precisely, and exclusively, those of well-formed English sentences. To many teachers, a structural syllabus is synonymous with mastering the tense system of the English verb. Structure is still frequently equated with grammar, and grammar is still frequently equated with sentence grammar.

Functions

This term was introduced into language teaching relatively few decades ago. It was coined by Wilkins and can be very simply defined: a function is the social purpose of an utterance. If we ask the question “Why did the speaker say that?”, the answer will come in the form of a function – the speaker was making a request, offering to help, refusing an invitation etc. Most language teachers are very familiar with such labels, which frequently represent units in the textbook.

Functions represented a major change in syllabus design. They are, in the technical sense, pragmatic in character, being concerned with the social purpose of the utterance. Previously, strict structural sequencing tended to prevail. Nowadays, it is a commonplace that sentences such as “Would you like a cup of tea?” can be introduced early in a learning programme, without structural analysis. This was not so before the influence of pragmatics was felt. The change has considerable relevance in present-day discussions, and it has been argued that institutionalised sentences and lexical phrases can be introduced in the early stages of learning without analysis, to a much greater extent than has hitherto been the practice.

(Michael Lewis. The lexical approach. HeinleCengage. 2002. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 40 a 47.

Language is, of course, the central subject matter for language teachers. A syllabus defines the content of a teaching programme, that is, it is concerned with what is to be learned. It was in the early 70’s that language teaching underwent something of a revolution.

Structures

This word, once central to all language teaching, is now somewhat out of fashion. It is most often employed to talk about structural syllabuses. Language teaching was based on the assumption that students first needed to master particular sentence frames – structures. The structures which were, and to a certain extent still are, perceived as central to language teaching were precisely, and exclusively, those of well-formed English sentences. To many teachers, a structural syllabus is synonymous with mastering the tense system of the English verb. Structure is still frequently equated with grammar, and grammar is still frequently equated with sentence grammar.

Functions

This term was introduced into language teaching relatively few decades ago. It was coined by Wilkins and can be very simply defined: a function is the social purpose of an utterance. If we ask the question “Why did the speaker say that?”, the answer will come in the form of a function – the speaker was making a request, offering to help, refusing an invitation etc. Most language teachers are very familiar with such labels, which frequently represent units in the textbook.

Functions represented a major change in syllabus design. They are, in the technical sense, pragmatic in character, being concerned with the social purpose of the utterance. Previously, strict structural sequencing tended to prevail. Nowadays, it is a commonplace that sentences such as “Would you like a cup of tea?” can be introduced early in a learning programme, without structural analysis. This was not so before the influence of pragmatics was felt. The change has considerable relevance in present-day discussions, and it has been argued that institutionalised sentences and lexical phrases can be introduced in the early stages of learning without analysis, to a much greater extent than has hitherto been the practice.

(Michael Lewis. The lexical approach. HeinleCengage. 2002. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 40 a 47.

Language is, of course, the central subject matter for language teachers. A syllabus defines the content of a teaching programme, that is, it is concerned with what is to be learned. It was in the early 70’s that language teaching underwent something of a revolution.

Structures

This word, once central to all language teaching, is now somewhat out of fashion. It is most often employed to talk about structural syllabuses. Language teaching was based on the assumption that students first needed to master particular sentence frames – structures. The structures which were, and to a certain extent still are, perceived as central to language teaching were precisely, and exclusively, those of well-formed English sentences. To many teachers, a structural syllabus is synonymous with mastering the tense system of the English verb. Structure is still frequently equated with grammar, and grammar is still frequently equated with sentence grammar.

Functions

This term was introduced into language teaching relatively few decades ago. It was coined by Wilkins and can be very simply defined: a function is the social purpose of an utterance. If we ask the question “Why did the speaker say that?”, the answer will come in the form of a function – the speaker was making a request, offering to help, refusing an invitation etc. Most language teachers are very familiar with such labels, which frequently represent units in the textbook.

Functions represented a major change in syllabus design. They are, in the technical sense, pragmatic in character, being concerned with the social purpose of the utterance. Previously, strict structural sequencing tended to prevail. Nowadays, it is a commonplace that sentences such as “Would you like a cup of tea?” can be introduced early in a learning programme, without structural analysis. This was not so before the influence of pragmatics was felt. The change has considerable relevance in present-day discussions, and it has been argued that institutionalised sentences and lexical phrases can be introduced in the early stages of learning without analysis, to a much greater extent than has hitherto been the practice.

(Michael Lewis. The lexical approach. HeinleCengage. 2002. Adaptado)