Questões para Concursos

Leia o texto para responder à questão. Segundo Kramasch (2024), o conceito de competência intercultural recebeu um novo significado por meio do uso de comunicação mediada por computadores (CMC), com o objetivo de promover a interação na L2 entre falantes nativos e não nativos da língua e entre falantes não nativos, e de capacitá-los a ter acesso a e manipular ambientes culturais não nacionais. O acesso direto a falantes da L2 e a imersão cultural promovida pela CMC realçam a ilusão do imediatismo semiótico e a autenticidade cultural. Entretanto, não conduziu, necessariamente, a uma exploração profunda de diferenças culturais. A comunicação intercultural online enfatizou a participação em comunidades online, a colaboração, a solução conjunta de problemas e o desenvolvimento de identidades híbridas que tanto independem das coações sociais do mundo real, quanto ficam sujeitas às pressões sociais e às coações coletivas das comunidades online. Não é à toa que há um número crescente de linguistas aplicados que estão ávidos a trazer a história, a memória e os aspectos subjetivos da aprendizagem de línguas de volta à sala de aula, bem como uma reflexão sobre o significado de operar entre línguas, a partir do background cultural do próprio indivíduo. (Kramasch, C. 2024. Adaptado)

Read the text to answer question. Robots are writing more of what we read on the internet. And artificial intelligence (AI) writing tools are becoming freely available for anyone, including students, to use. In a period of rapid change, there are enormous ethical implications for post-human authorship — in which humans and machines collaborate. The study of AI ethics needs to be central to education as we increasingly use machinegenerated content to communicate with others. AI robot writers, such as GPT-3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) take seconds to create text that seems like it was written by humans. In September, 2020 GPT-3 wrote an entire essay in The Guardian to convince people not to fear artificial intelligence. As recently as 2019, this kind of technology seemed a long way off. But today, it is readily available. Of course, there’s the issue of cheating on essays and other assignments. School and university leaders need to have difficult conversations about what constitutes “authorship” and “editorship” in the post-human age. We are all (already) writing with technological devices, even just via spelling and grammar checkers. (https://theconversation.com. Adaptado)

Read the text to answer question. Robots are writing more of what we read on the internet. And artificial intelligence (AI) writing tools are becoming freely available for anyone, including students, to use. In a period of rapid change, there are enormous ethical implications for post-human authorship — in which humans and machines collaborate. The study of AI ethics needs to be central to education as we increasingly use machinegenerated content to communicate with others. AI robot writers, such as GPT-3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) take seconds to create text that seems like it was written by humans. In September, 2020 GPT-3 wrote an entire essay in The Guardian to convince people not to fear artificial intelligence. As recently as 2019, this kind of technology seemed a long way off. But today, it is readily available. Of course, there’s the issue of cheating on essays and other assignments. School and university leaders need to have difficult conversations about what constitutes “authorship” and “editorship” in the post-human age. We are all (already) writing with technological devices, even just via spelling and grammar checkers. (https://theconversation.com. Adaptado)

Read the text to answer question. Robots are writing more of what we read on the internet. And artificial intelligence (AI) writing tools are becoming freely available for anyone, including students, to use. In a period of rapid change, there are enormous ethical implications for post-human authorship — in which humans and machines collaborate. The study of AI ethics needs to be central to education as we increasingly use machinegenerated content to communicate with others. AI robot writers, such as GPT-3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) take seconds to create text that seems like it was written by humans. In September, 2020 GPT-3 wrote an entire essay in The Guardian to convince people not to fear artificial intelligence. As recently as 2019, this kind of technology seemed a long way off. But today, it is readily available. Of course, there’s the issue of cheating on essays and other assignments. School and university leaders need to have difficult conversations about what constitutes “authorship” and “editorship” in the post-human age. We are all (already) writing with technological devices, even just via spelling and grammar checkers. (https://theconversation.com. Adaptado)

Read the text to answer question. Robots are writing more of what we read on the internet. And artificial intelligence (AI) writing tools are becoming freely available for anyone, including students, to use. In a period of rapid change, there are enormous ethical implications for post-human authorship — in which humans and machines collaborate. The study of AI ethics needs to be central to education as we increasingly use machinegenerated content to communicate with others. AI robot writers, such as GPT-3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) take seconds to create text that seems like it was written by humans. In September, 2020 GPT-3 wrote an entire essay in The Guardian to convince people not to fear artificial intelligence. As recently as 2019, this kind of technology seemed a long way off. But today, it is readily available. Of course, there’s the issue of cheating on essays and other assignments. School and university leaders need to have difficult conversations about what constitutes “authorship” and “editorship” in the post-human age. We are all (already) writing with technological devices, even just via spelling and grammar checkers. (https://theconversation.com. Adaptado)

Read the text to answer question. The last century of language teaching history, operating within this theory-practice, researcher teacher dichotomy, has not been completely devoid of dialogue between the two sides. We moved in and out of paradigms (Kuhn, 1970) as inadequacies of the old ways of doing things were replaced by better ways. These trends in language teaching were partly the result of teachers and researchers communicating with each other. The custom of leaving theory to researchers and practice to teachers has become, in Clarke’s (1994) words, “dysfunctional”. What is becoming clearer in this profession now is the importance of viewing the process of language instruction as a cooperative dialog among many technicians, each endowed with special skills, such as program developing, textbook writing, measuring variables of acquisition, designing experiments, and the list goes on. We are all practitioners and we are all theorists. Whenever that understanding calls for putting together diverse bits and pieces of knowledge, you are doing some theory building. Or, if you have observed some learners in classrooms and you discern common threads of process among them, you have created a theory. And whenever you, in the role of a teacher, ask pertinent questions about Second Language Acquisition (SLA), you are beginning the process of research that can lead to a theoretical statement. (Brown, H.D. 2006. Adaptado)

Read the text to answer question. The last century of language teaching history, operating within this theory-practice, researcher teacher dichotomy, has not been completely devoid of dialogue between the two sides. We moved in and out of paradigms (Kuhn, 1970) as inadequacies of the old ways of doing things were replaced by better ways. These trends in language teaching were partly the result of teachers and researchers communicating with each other. The custom of leaving theory to researchers and practice to teachers has become, in Clarke’s (1994) words, “dysfunctional”. What is becoming clearer in this profession now is the importance of viewing the process of language instruction as a cooperative dialog among many technicians, each endowed with special skills, such as program developing, textbook writing, measuring variables of acquisition, designing experiments, and the list goes on. We are all practitioners and we are all theorists. Whenever that understanding calls for putting together diverse bits and pieces of knowledge, you are doing some theory building. Or, if you have observed some learners in classrooms and you discern common threads of process among them, you have created a theory. And whenever you, in the role of a teacher, ask pertinent questions about Second Language Acquisition (SLA), you are beginning the process of research that can lead to a theoretical statement. (Brown, H.D. 2006. Adaptado)

Read the text to answer the question from. It happens that the publication of this edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary comes 250 years after the appearance of the first comprehensive dictionary of the English language, compiled by Samuel Johnson. Much has changed since then. The English that Johnson described in 1755 was relatively well defined, still essentially the national property of the British. Since then, it has dispersed and diversified, has been adopted and adapted as an international means of communication by communities all over the globe. English is now the name given to an immensely diverse variety of different usages. This obviously poses a problem of selection for the dictionary maker: which words are to be included in a dictionary, and thus granted recognition as more centrally or essentially English than the words that are left out? Johnson did not have to deal with such diversity, but he too was exercised with this question. In his Plan of an English Dictionary , published in 1747, he considers which words it is proper to include in his dictionary; whether ‘terms of particular professions’, for example, were eligible, particularly since many of them had been derived from other languages. ‘Of such words,’ he says, ‘all are not equally to be considered as parts of our language, for some of them are naturalized and incorporated, but others still continue aliens...’. Which words are deemed to be sufficiently naturalized or incorporated to count as ‘parts of our language’, ‘real’ or proper English, and thus worthy of inclusion in a dictionary of the language, remains, of course, a controversial matter. Interestingly enough, even for Johnson the status of a word in the language was not the only, nor indeed the most important consideration. For being alien did not itself disqualify words from inclusion; in a remark which has considerable current resonance he adds: ‘some seem necessary to be retained, because the purchaser of the dictionary will expect to find them’. And, crucially, the expectations that people have of a dictionary are based on what they want to use it for. What Johnson says of his own dictionary would apply very aptly to The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (OALD): ‘The value of a work must be estimated by its use: It is not enough that a dictionary delights the critic, unless at the same time it instructs the learner...’. (Widdowson, H. Hornby , A.S. 2010. Adaptado)

Read the text to answer the question from. It happens that the publication of this edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary comes 250 years after the appearance of the first comprehensive dictionary of the English language, compiled by Samuel Johnson. Much has changed since then. The English that Johnson described in 1755 was relatively well defined, still essentially the national property of the British. Since then, it has dispersed and diversified, has been adopted and adapted as an international means of communication by communities all over the globe. English is now the name given to an immensely diverse variety of different usages. This obviously poses a problem of selection for the dictionary maker: which words are to be included in a dictionary, and thus granted recognition as more centrally or essentially English than the words that are left out? Johnson did not have to deal with such diversity, but he too was exercised with this question. In his Plan of an English Dictionary , published in 1747, he considers which words it is proper to include in his dictionary; whether ‘terms of particular professions’, for example, were eligible, particularly since many of them had been derived from other languages. ‘Of such words,’ he says, ‘all are not equally to be considered as parts of our language, for some of them are naturalized and incorporated, but others still continue aliens...’. Which words are deemed to be sufficiently naturalized or incorporated to count as ‘parts of our language’, ‘real’ or proper English, and thus worthy of inclusion in a dictionary of the language, remains, of course, a controversial matter. Interestingly enough, even for Johnson the status of a word in the language was not the only, nor indeed the most important consideration. For being alien did not itself disqualify words from inclusion; in a remark which has considerable current resonance he adds: ‘some seem necessary to be retained, because the purchaser of the dictionary will expect to find them’. And, crucially, the expectations that people have of a dictionary are based on what they want to use it for. What Johnson says of his own dictionary would apply very aptly to The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (OALD): ‘The value of a work must be estimated by its use: It is not enough that a dictionary delights the critic, unless at the same time it instructs the learner...’. (Widdowson, H. Hornby , A.S. 2010. Adaptado)