O atual momento vivenciado pela sociedade - em que as pessoas podem se comunicar, conversar e trocar dados rapidamente - promoveu mudanças no ordenamento legislativo brasileiro, o que levou à promulgação do Decreto n.7.724, de 16 de maio de 2012 (regulamentador da Lei n.12.527, de 18 de novembro de 2011), que dispõe sobre acesso à informação. Sobre o tema, assinale a alternativa INCORRETA.

Levando-se em consideração o Decreto n. 1.171/94, que aborda sobre o Código de Ética Profissional do Servidor Público do Executivo Federal, assinale a alternativa correta.

Para responder à questõe, considere o texto 'Text and Context in Translation'.

Texto V

Text and Context in Translation

I have argued that this view propagated in all approaches which focus on discourse-cum-negotiation – is not relevant for translation, because translation operates on written text and can only construct context and enact discourse ex post facto, never online. Functional approaches to language, functional pragmatics and Hallidayan systemic functional linguistics were given preference over philosophical, pragmatic, sociolinguistic and conversation analytic approaches because their notion of context was found to be more suitable for the written text and thus for a theory of translation as re-contextualization. Re-contextualization was defined as taking a text out of its original frame and context and placing it within a new set of relationships and culturally conditioned expectations.

Fonte: HOUSE, J. Text and context in translation. Journal of Pragmatics,
v. 38, p. 356, 2006.

O emprego da expressão "ex post facto" no texto é um exemplo de

A era da impaciência

Assim como os livros expandiram nossa capacidade cerebral, as tecnologias atuais podem gerar o efeito contrário

A vida no século XXI pode não ser maravilhosa como sugerem as propagandas de telefones celulares, graças aos consideráveis impactos sociais provocados pela onipresença das novas tecnologias de comunicação e informação. Dois filmes recentes tratam do tema: Disconnect (2012) e Men, Women & Children (2014). As duas obras adoçam seu olhar crítico com uma visão humanista. O grande tema é a vida contemporânea, marcada pelo consumo de bens e estilos e povoada pelas doenças da sociedade moderna: bullying, identidades roubadas, comunicações mediadas e relações fragilizadas. No centro dos dramas, estão a internet e as mídias sociais.

Se determinados impactos sociais já são notáveis, alguns efeitos econômicos ainda estão sendo descobertos. No dia 17 de fevereiro de 2015, Andrew G. Haldane, economista-chefe do Banco da Inglaterra, realizou uma palestra para estudantes da University of East Anglia. O tema foi crescimento econômico.

Haldane inicia mostrando que o crescimento econômico é uma condição relativamente recente na história da humanidade, começou há menos de 300 anos. Três fases de inovação marcaram essa breve história do crescimento: a Revolução Industrial, no século XVIII, a industrialização em massa, no século XIX, e a revolução da tecnologia da informação, na segunda metade do século XX. Qual a fonte primária do crescimento econômico? Em uma palavra, paciência. Na visão do economista, é a paciência que permite poupar, o que por sua vez financia os investimentos que resultam no crescimento. Combinada com a inovação tecnológica, a paciência move montanhas. Existem também, lembra Haldane, fatores endógenos, a exemplo de educação e habilidades, cultura e cooperação, infraestrutura e instituições. Todos se reforçam mutuamente e funcionam de forma cumulativa. Pobres os países que não conseguem desenvolvê-los.

De onde veio a paciência? Da invenção da impressão por tipos móveis, por Gutenberg, no século XV, que resultou na explosão da produção de livros, sugere Haldane. Os livros levaram a um salto no nível de alfabetização e, em termos neurológicos, “reformataram” nossas mentes, viabilizando raciocínios mais profundos, amplos e complexos. Neste caso, a tecnologia ampliou nossa capacidade mental, que, por sua vez, alavancou a tecnologia, criando um ciclo virtuoso.

E os avanços tecnológicos contemporâneos, terão o mesmo efeito? Haldane receia que não. Assim como os livros expandiram nossa capacidade cerebral, as tecnologias atuais podem gerar o efeito contrário. Maior o acesso a informações, menor nossa capacidade de atenção, e menor nossa capacidade de análise. E nossa paciência sofre com o processo.

Hipnotizados por tablets e smart phones, vivemos em uma sociedade assolada pelo transtorno do déficit de atenção e pela impaciência crônica. Não faltam exemplos: alunos lacrimejam e bocejam depois de 20 minutos de aula; leitores parecem querer textos cada vez mais curtos, fúteis e ilustrados; executivos saltam furiosamente sobre diagnósticos e análises e tomam decisões na velocidade do som; projetos são iniciados e rapidamente esquecidos; reuniões iniciam sem pauta e terminam sem rumo.

Haldane conclui que os ingredientes do crescimento ainda são misteriosos, mas que a história aponta para uma combinação complexa de fatores tecnológicos e sociológicos. É prudente observar que o autor não está sugerindo uma relação direta entre o crescimento das mídias sociais e a estagnação econômica que vem ocorrendo em muitos países. Sua análise é temporalmente mais ampla, profunda e especulativa. Entretanto, há uma preocupação clara com os custos cognitivos da “revolução” da informação, que se somam aos custos sociais tratados nos dois filmes que abriram esta coluna. Não é pouco.

Fonte: Disponível em: <http://www.cartacapital.com.br/revista/840/a-era-da-impaciencia-5039.html>.
Acesso em: 6 de maio de 2016. (Adaptado)

Considere as afirmativas sobre sugestões de reescrita para o fragmento Os livros levaram a um salto no nível de alfabetização e, em termos neurológicos, " reformataram" nossas mentes, viabilizando raciocínios mais profundos, amplos e complexos.

I → Sem prejuízo da adequação gramatical e da coerência, o segmento Em termos sociais pode ser introduzido no início do período, seguido de vírgula.

II → Sem prejuízo do sentido e da concordância, o segmento promoveram pode ser considerado uma forma sinonímica de levaram a.

III → Sem alteração de sentido, o segmento "reformatamos" pode ser usado como forma alternativa à escolhida, "reformataram".

Está(ão) correta(s)

Para responder à questão, considere o texto I.

Texto I

One of the fundamental concepts in translation theory is that of translation equivalence. Equivalence also underpins our everyday understanding of translation: linguistically naïve persons tend to think of translation as a text which is a sort of ‘reproduction’ of a text originally produced in another language, where this reproduction is somehow of comparable value. A translation can therefore be understood as a text which is doubly contextually bound: on the one hand to its contextually embedded source text and on the other to the (potential) recipient’s communicative-contextual conditions. This double-linkage is the basis of the so-called equivalence relation and at the same time the conceptual heart of translation. To quote John Catford (1965:21), ‘‘The central problem of translation-practice is that of finding TL (target language) equivalents. A central task of translation theory is therefore that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalence’’.

Equivalence, like context, is obviously a relative concept; it has nothing to do with identity. Absolute equivalence would in fact be a contradictio in adiecto. Equivalence is a relative concept in several respects; it is determined by the socio-historical conditions in which the translation act is embedded, and by the range of often irreconcilable linguistic and contextual factors at play, among them at least the following: source and target languages with their specific structural constraints; the extra-linguistic world and the way this world is perceived by the two language communities; the linguistic conventions of the translator and of the target language and culture; structural, connotative and aesthetic features of the original; the translator’s comprehension and interpretation of the original and her creativity; the translator’s explicit and/or implicit theory of translation; translation traditions in the target culture; interpretation of the original by its author; audience design as well as generic norms, and possibly many more. In setting up such a variety of ‘‘equivalence frameworks’’ (Koller, 1995), the concept of equivalence can be specified or operationalized.

Given these different types of equivalence in translation, and given the nature of translation as a decision process (Levy, 1967), the translator is always forced to make choices, i.e., to set up a hierarchy of demands on equivalence which he or she wants to follow. Since appropriate use of language in communicative performance is what matters most in translation, it is functional, pragmatic equivalence which is of particular relevance for translation. And it is this type of equivalence which underpins the systemic–functional model to be described here, a model that attempts to explicate the way meaning can be re-constituted across two different contexts. Three aspects of that meaning are particularly important for translation: a semantic, a pragmatic and a textual aspect. Translation can then be defined as the replacement of a text in a source language by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in a target language. An adequate translation is thus a pragmatically and semantically equivalent one. As a first requirement for this equivalence, it is posited that a translation text have a function equivalent to that of its original.

Fonte: HOUSE, J. Text and context in translation. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 38, p. 338-358, 2006. (Adaptado)

O fragmento “the translator is always forced… to set up a hierarchy of demands on equivalence” refere-se à

I → natureza relativa do conceito de equivalência em tradução.

II → necessidade de definir fatores mais e menos relevantes para alcançar a equivalência em cada tradução.

III → multiplicidade de condições que determinam a equivalência entre texto de partida e texto de chegada.

Está(ão) correta(s)

Para responder à questão, considere o texto 'Ciência Sem Fronteiras'.

Texto III

Ciência Sem Fronteiras

Ciência sem Fronteiras é um programa que busca promover a consolidação, expansão e internacionalização da ciência e tecnologia, da inovação e da competitividade brasileira por meio do intercâmbio e da mobilidade internacional. A iniciativa é fruto de esforço conjunto dos Ministérios da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) e do Ministério da Educação (MEC), por meio do CNPq e da Capes, e Secretarias de Ensino Superior e de Ensino Tecnológico do MEC.

O Programa Ciência sem Fronteiras possui acordos e parceria com diversas instituições de ensino, programas de intercâmbio e institutos de pesquisa ao redor do mundo.

A seleção final será feita pela CAPES, que também escolherá a universidade de destino do candidato de acordo com a área de estudo e dentro da oferta de vagas estabelecidas pelas instituições que aderirem ao programa em cada país.

São abertas periodicamente chamadas públicas para Graduação-Sanduíche pelo Programa Ciência sem Fronteiras. Informações sobre Chamadas públicas abertas podem ser obtidas em www.cienciasemfronteiras.org.br

No caso de uma versão do texto para o inglês, considere as seguintes afirmações.

I → Os nomes por extenso dos ministérios devem ser vertidos para o inglês.

II → As siglas dos ministérios devem ser alteradas de acordo com a versão dos nomes por extenso em inglês.

III → As siglas ‘CNPq’ e ‘Capes’ devem ser mantidas, e suas identidades explicadas por meio de glosa.

Está(ão) correta(s)

Para responder à questão, considere o texto I.

Texto I

One of the fundamental concepts in translation theory is that of translation equivalence. Equivalence also underpins our everyday understanding of translation: linguistically naïve persons tend to think of translation as a text which is a sort of ‘reproduction’ of a text originally produced in another language, where this reproduction is somehow of comparable value. A translation can therefore be understood as a text which is doubly contextually bound: on the one hand to its contextually embedded source text and on the other to the (potential) recipient’s communicative-contextual conditions. This double-linkage is the basis of the so-called equivalence relation and at the same time the conceptual heart of translation. To quote John Catford (1965:21), ‘‘The central problem of translation-practice is that of finding TL (target language) equivalents. A central task of translation theory is therefore that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalence’’.

Equivalence, like context, is obviously a relative concept; it has nothing to do with identity. Absolute equivalence would in fact be a contradictio in adiecto. Equivalence is a relative concept in several respects; it is determined by the socio-historical conditions in which the translation act is embedded, and by the range of often irreconcilable linguistic and contextual factors at play, among them at least the following: source and target languages with their specific structural constraints; the extra-linguistic world and the way this world is perceived by the two language communities; the linguistic conventions of the translator and of the target language and culture; structural, connotative and aesthetic features of the original; the translator’s comprehension and interpretation of the original and her creativity; the translator’s explicit and/or implicit theory of translation; translation traditions in the target culture; interpretation of the original by its author; audience design as well as generic norms, and possibly many more. In setting up such a variety of ‘‘equivalence frameworks’’ (Koller, 1995), the concept of equivalence can be specified or operationalized.

Given these different types of equivalence in translation, and given the nature of translation as a decision process (Levy, 1967), the translator is always forced to make choices, i.e., to set up a hierarchy of demands on equivalence which he or she wants to follow. Since appropriate use of language in communicative performance is what matters most in translation, it is functional, pragmatic equivalence which is of particular relevance for translation. And it is this type of equivalence which underpins the systemic–functional model to be described here, a model that attempts to explicate the way meaning can be re-constituted across two different contexts. Three aspects of that meaning are particularly important for translation: a semantic, a pragmatic and a textual aspect. Translation can then be defined as the replacement of a text in a source language by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in a target language. An adequate translation is thus a pragmatically and semantically equivalent one. As a first requirement for this equivalence, it is posited that a translation text have a function equivalent to that of its original.

Fonte: HOUSE, J. Text and context in translation. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 38, p. 338-358, 2006. (Adaptado)

Para que um texto traduzido seja considerado adequado, é preciso que

Para responder à questão, considere o texto I.

Texto I

One of the fundamental concepts in translation theory is that of translation equivalence. Equivalence also underpins our everyday understanding of translation: linguistically naïve persons tend to think of translation as a text which is a sort of ‘reproduction’ of a text originally produced in another language, where this reproduction is somehow of comparable value. A translation can therefore be understood as a text which is doubly contextually bound: on the one hand to its contextually embedded source text and on the other to the (potential) recipient’s communicative-contextual conditions. This double-linkage is the basis of the so-called equivalence relation and at the same time the conceptual heart of translation. To quote John Catford (1965:21), ‘‘The central problem of translation-practice is that of finding TL (target language) equivalents. A central task of translation theory is therefore that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalence’’.

Equivalence, like context, is obviously a relative concept; it has nothing to do with identity. Absolute equivalence would in fact be a contradictio in adiecto. Equivalence is a relative concept in several respects; it is determined by the socio-historical conditions in which the translation act is embedded, and by the range of often irreconcilable linguistic and contextual factors at play, among them at least the following: source and target languages with their specific structural constraints; the extra-linguistic world and the way this world is perceived by the two language communities; the linguistic conventions of the translator and of the target language and culture; structural, connotative and aesthetic features of the original; the translator’s comprehension and interpretation of the original and her creativity; the translator’s explicit and/or implicit theory of translation; translation traditions in the target culture; interpretation of the original by its author; audience design as well as generic norms, and possibly many more. In setting up such a variety of ‘‘equivalence frameworks’’ (Koller, 1995), the concept of equivalence can be specified or operationalized.

Given these different types of equivalence in translation, and given the nature of translation as a decision process (Levy, 1967), the translator is always forced to make choices, i.e., to set up a hierarchy of demands on equivalence which he or she wants to follow. Since appropriate use of language in communicative performance is what matters most in translation, it is functional, pragmatic equivalence which is of particular relevance for translation. And it is this type of equivalence which underpins the systemic–functional model to be described here, a model that attempts to explicate the way meaning can be re-constituted across two different contexts. Three aspects of that meaning are particularly important for translation: a semantic, a pragmatic and a textual aspect. Translation can then be defined as the replacement of a text in a source language by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in a target language. An adequate translation is thus a pragmatically and semantically equivalent one. As a first requirement for this equivalence, it is posited that a translation text have a function equivalent to that of its original.

Fonte: HOUSE, J. Text and context in translation. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 38, p. 338-358, 2006. (Adaptado)

A pergunta cuja resposta certa deve ser “the translated text's double-linkage to context” é

Para responder à questão, considere o texto I.

Texto I

One of the fundamental concepts in translation theory is that of translation equivalence. Equivalence also underpins our everyday understanding of translation: linguistically naïve persons tend to think of translation as a text which is a sort of ‘reproduction’ of a text originally produced in another language, where this reproduction is somehow of comparable value. A translation can therefore be understood as a text which is doubly contextually bound: on the one hand to its contextually embedded source text and on the other to the (potential) recipient’s communicative-contextual conditions. This double-linkage is the basis of the so-called equivalence relation and at the same time the conceptual heart of translation. To quote John Catford (1965:21), ‘‘The central problem of translation-practice is that of finding TL (target language) equivalents. A central task of translation theory is therefore that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalence’’.

Equivalence, like context, is obviously a relative concept; it has nothing to do with identity. Absolute equivalence would in fact be a contradictio in adiecto. Equivalence is a relative concept in several respects; it is determined by the socio-historical conditions in which the translation act is embedded, and by the range of often irreconcilable linguistic and contextual factors at play, among them at least the following: source and target languages with their specific structural constraints; the extra-linguistic world and the way this world is perceived by the two language communities; the linguistic conventions of the translator and of the target language and culture; structural, connotative and aesthetic features of the original; the translator’s comprehension and interpretation of the original and her creativity; the translator’s explicit and/or implicit theory of translation; translation traditions in the target culture; interpretation of the original by its author; audience design as well as generic norms, and possibly many more. In setting up such a variety of ‘‘equivalence frameworks’’ (Koller, 1995), the concept of equivalence can be specified or operationalized.

Given these different types of equivalence in translation, and given the nature of translation as a decision process (Levy, 1967), the translator is always forced to make choices, i.e., to set up a hierarchy of demands on equivalence which he or she wants to follow. Since appropriate use of language in communicative performance is what matters most in translation, it is functional, pragmatic equivalence which is of particular relevance for translation. And it is this type of equivalence which underpins the systemic–functional model to be described here, a model that attempts to explicate the way meaning can be re-constituted across two different contexts. Three aspects of that meaning are particularly important for translation: a semantic, a pragmatic and a textual aspect. Translation can then be defined as the replacement of a text in a source language by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in a target language. An adequate translation is thus a pragmatically and semantically equivalent one. As a first requirement for this equivalence, it is posited that a translation text have a function equivalent to that of its original.

Fonte: HOUSE, J. Text and context in translation. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 38, p. 338-358, 2006. (Adaptado)

Para o problema indicado no segmento “The central problem of translation-practice is that of finding TL (target language) equivalents”, o texto apresenta a seguinte solução:

Para responder à questõe, considere o texto 'Text and Context in Translation'.

Texto V

Text and Context in Translation

I have argued that this view propagated in all approaches which focus on discourse-cum-negotiation – is not relevant for translation, because translation operates on written text and can only construct context and enact discourse ex post facto, never online. Functional approaches to language, functional pragmatics and Hallidayan systemic functional linguistics were given preference over philosophical, pragmatic, sociolinguistic and conversation analytic approaches because their notion of context was found to be more suitable for the written text and thus for a theory of translation as re-contextualization. Re-contextualization was defined as taking a text out of its original frame and context and placing it within a new set of relationships and culturally conditioned expectations.

Fonte: HOUSE, J. Text and context in translation. Journal of Pragmatics,
v. 38, p. 356, 2006.

Considere as seguintes afirmações.

I → A autora prefere noções de contexto que enfatizem o processo de produção do texto fonte.

II → Em tradução, a recontextualização envolve produzir um texto que faça sentido no novo conjunto de relações e expectativas do contexto alvo.

III → A partir do fragmento, podemos inferir que a noção de tradução da autora se aplica apenas a textos escritos.

Está(ão) correta(s)