OS FORMADORES DE OPINIÃO E O DISCURSO SOBRE A MANUALIZAÇÃO DA LÍNGUA

• Ano de defesa: 2014
• Autor(a) principal: Salache, Loide Andréa
• Orientador(a): Venturini, Maria Cleci
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: UNICENTRO - Universidade Estadual do Centro Oeste
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Letras (Mestrado)
• Departamento: Unicentro::Departamento de Letras
• País: BR
• Palavras-chave em Português: sujeito; língua; ideologia; cultura; determinação histórica
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: subject; language; ideology; culture; historical determination
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: LINGUISTICA, LETRAS E ARTES::LETRAS
• Link de acesso: http://localhost:8080/tede/handle/tede/53

The theoretical foundations that anchor/support this research are those of discourse analysis, introduced by Michel Pecheux, in the 60s of XX century and structured in Brazil by Eni Orlandi and researchers who work with her. In this disciplinary field , the discourse is the center and only became the material of subjects interpellated by ideology and crossed by the unconscious. Methodologically, not searching for content, but for the way how certain effects are constituted. The discursive object and the cutouts made in the corpus are crucial for the methodological guidance. In this research, the research object is the discourse on language manualized in/of politically correct, meant as one more coercive action that seeks to manage the language. Three articles "opinion makers", belonging to discursive formations that overlap while they differ by the different subject-positions, structure the corpus. Those called by the manual authors of "opinion makers" respond by authory of the three materialities cut, and from those, we cut discursive sequences (SD) to be analyzed in order to answer the following research question: How in discourses about, the manual build up evidences that the language is always heterogeneous, despite the coercive practices? The overall goal around this issue is to understand the discursive function of language in manuals, highlighting the effects of senses beyond its management and its uniformity, seeking to identify the discourses that support this practice. This will encompass the following specific objectives: 1) mapping out government actions, which give visibility to the State Repressive Apparatus (SRA) in relation to language practices, 2) identify the discursive procedures, stablisher of evidence around the imposibility of the language functioning in its heterogeneity and its difficulties in manualisation, 3) highlight the conception of language functioning in materiality cut from the subject-positions occupied by those responsible for discourses about, on manualized language, emphasizing the regularities, the disruptions, the contradictions and discourses that support/anchor this operation. The work is divided into three chapters that are articulated in order to answer the proposed question and meet the objectives of this work. In the first chapter, we prioritized natural historical aspects, seeking to map out government practices that treat coercively the language, and try to manage it. We focus on the operation of the manual through notions that mean "how standardizing the language". In the second chapter, we undertook theories about the language functioning, from the theoretical conception of Discourse Analysis. The third chapter covers the analysis around the discursive sequences cut from the materiality that structure the corpus. We emphasize the need to reclaim the central issue and the mapping of enforcement actions around the language, because only then is it possible identify the discourses that sustain and legitimize this discourse today. Based on the research questions and the proposed objectives it can be concluded that, in this manual, specifically, the management of language introduced among other effects of senses, that the standardization of the language falls in the order of the impossible, and if it is persecuted, precludes the exercise of speech. This impossibility is constituted as a way to resist coercion, domination. The discourses that underpin the attempt to "manage" the language come from the civilizations history, places and times in which language functioned as a political instrument of coercion, making it visible and legitimate institutionalized power.