The sentences “This view of bilingualism is remarkably diff...
Próximas questões
Com base no mesmo assunto
Ano: 2012
Banca:
UECE-CEV
Órgão:
UECE
Prova:
UECE-CEV - 2012 - UECE - Vestibular - Língua Inglesa - 1º Dia - 2ª fase |
Q1278817
Inglês
Texto associado
T E X T
SPEAKING two languages rather than just one has obvious practical benefits in an increasingly globalized world. But in recent years, scientists have begun to show that the advantages of bilingualism are even more fundamental than being able to converse with a wider range of people. Being bilingual, it turns out, makes you smarter. It can have a profound effect on your brain, improving cognitive skills not related to language and even shielding against dementia in old age.
This view of bilingualism is remarkably different from the understanding of bilingualism through much of the 20th century. Researchers, educators and policy makers long considered a second language to be an interference, cognitively speaking, that hindered a child’s academic and intellectual development.
They were not wrong about the interference: there is ample evidence that in a bilingual’s brain both language systems are active even when he is using only one language, thus creating situations in which one system obstructs the other. But this interference, researchers are finding out, isn’t so much a handicap as a blessing in disguise. It forces the brain to resolve internal conflict, giving the mind a workout that strengthens its cognitive muscles.
Bilinguals, for instance, seem to be more adept than monolinguals at solving certain kinds of mental puzzles. In a 2004 study by the psychologists Ellen Bialystok and Michelle MartinRhee, bilingual and monolingual preschoolers were asked to sort blue circles and red squares presented on a computer screen into two digital bins — one marked with a blue square and the other marked with a red circle.
In the first task, the children had to sort the shapes by color, placing blue circles in the bin marked with the blue square and red squares in the bin marked with the red circle. Both groups did this with comparable ease. Next, the children were asked to sort by shape, which was more challenging because it required placing the images in a bin marked with a conflicting color. The bilinguals were quicker at performing this task.
The collective evidence from a number of such studies suggests that the bilingual experience improves the brain’s so-called executive function — a command system that directs the attention processes that we use for planning, solving problems and performing various other mentally demanding tasks. These processes include ignoring distractions to stay focused, switching attention willfully from one thing to another and holding information in mind — like remembering a sequence of directions while driving.
Why does the tussle between two simultaneously active language systems improve these aspects of cognition? Until recently, researchers thought the bilingual advantage stemmed primarily from an ability for inhibition that was honed by the exercise of suppressing one language system: this suppression, it was thought, would help train the bilingual mind to ignore distractions in other contexts. But that explanation increasingly appears to be inadequate, since studies have shown that bilinguals perform better than monolinguals even at tasks that do not require inhibition, like threading a line through an ascending series of numbers scattered randomly on a page.
The key difference between bilinguals and monolinguals may be more basic: a heightened ability to monitor the environment. “Bilinguals have to switch languages quite often — you may talk to your father in one language and to your mother in another language,” says Albert Costa, a researcher at the University of PompeuFabra in Spain. “It requires keeping track of changes around you in the same way that we monitor our surroundings when driving.” In a study comparing German-Italian bilinguals with Italian monolinguals on monitoring tasks, Mr. Costa and his colleagues found that the bilingual subjects not only performed better, but they also did so with less activity in parts of the brain involved in monitoring, indicating that they were more efficient at it.
The bilingual experience appears to influence the brain from infancy to old age (and there is reason to believe that it may also apply to those who learn a second language later in life).
In a 2009 study led by Agnes Kovacs of the International School for Advanced Studies in Trieste, Italy, 7-month-old babies exposed to two languages from birth were compared with peers raised with one language. In an initial set of trials, the infants were presented with an audio cue and then shown a puppet on one side of a screen. Both infant groups learned to look at that side of the screen in anticipation of the puppet. But in a later set of trials, when the puppet began appearing on the opposite side of the screen, the babies exposed to a bilingual environment quickly learned to switch their anticipatory gaze in the new direction while the other babies did not.
Bilingualism’s effects also extend into the twilight years. In a recent study of 44 elderly Spanish-English bilinguals, scientists led by the neuropsychologist Tamar Gollan of the University of California, San Diego, found that individuals with a higher degree of bilingualism — measured through a comparative evaluation of proficiency in each language — were more resistant than others to the onset of dementia and other symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease: the higher the degree of bilingualism, the later the age of onset.
Nobody ever doubted the power of language. But who would have imagined that the words we hear and the sentences we speak might be leaving such a deep imprint?
Source: www.nytimes.com
In the following question, some sentences
from the text have been modified to fit certain
grammatical structures.
The sentences “This view of bilingualism is
remarkably different from the understanding of
bilingualism through much of the 20th century.” and
“In the laboratory the children placed the blue
circles in the bin marked with the blue square.”
contain, respectively, at least one
Gabarito comentado
Confira o gabarito comentado por um dos nossos professores
Gabarito: C
Fundamento decisivo: O trecho decisivo é a correspondência entre a primeira sentença e a estrutura com linking verb — “This view of bilingualism is remarkably different ...” — e a segunda e a estrutura com verbo transitivo — “the children placed the blue circles in the bin ...”. Pela ordem indicada em “respectively”, isso leva a subject complement na primeira e direct object na segunda, o que confirma a alternativa C.
Tema central: funções sintáticas em inglês
Análise das alternativas
A
Errada
Está errada em ambas as classificações exigidas pela ordem de “respectively”. A primeira sentença não tem direct object, porque “is” é verbo de ligação e o termo posposto é predicativo do sujeito. A segunda não tem subject complement; nela há verbo de ação, e “the blue circles” funciona como direct object.
B
Errada
A segunda classificação está correta, mas a primeira invalida a alternativa. Na primeira sentença não há object complement, porque essa função exige uma estrutura em que um termo complemente ou predique o objeto, e ali não existe objeto: há sujeito + linking verb + subject complement.
C
Certa
A alternativa C corresponde exatamente às duas estruturas cobradas. Em “This view of bilingualism is remarkably different from the understanding of bilingualism through much of the 20th century.”, o verbo “is” funciona como linking verb, e “remarkably different from the understanding of bilingualism through much of the 20th century” atribui característica ao sujeito “This view of bilingualism”, portanto é subject complement. Em “In the laboratory the children placed the blue circles in the bin marked with the blue square.”, “placed” é verbo transitivo, e “the blue circles” é o termo que recebe diretamente a ação, portanto é direct object.
D
Errada
A primeira sentença não contém indirect object, porque não há complemento desse tipo após “is”. A segunda também não traz object complement: “in the bin marked with the blue square” é sintagma preposicionado de lugar/destino, não termo que predica o objeto. Além disso, objeto de preposição não se confunde com indirect object no sentido cobrado.
Pegadinha da questão
A banca explora duas confusões reais: tratar qualquer termo após o verbo como objeto e tomar o sintagma preposicionado “in the bin ...” como indirect object ou object complement. O “respectively” também impede inverter as classificações.
Dica para questões semelhantes
- Verifique primeiro se o verbo liga o sujeito a uma característica ou se transfere ação para um complemento.
- Com “respectively”, associe rigidamente a primeira sentença ao primeiro termo da alternativa e a segunda ao segundo.
- Não classifique sintagma preposicionado automaticamente como indirect object; confirme se ele é realmente objeto ou apenas complemento/adjunto preposicionado.
- Só há object complement quando existe objeto e um termo adicional que o qualifica ou identifica.
Clique para visualizar este gabarito
Visualize o gabarito desta questão clicando no botão abaixo
Conheça nossos planos