Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2019 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Magri, Mariano
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Ferreira, Luiz Antonio |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Língua Portuguesa
|
| Departamento: |
Faculdade de Filosofia, Comunicação, Letras e Artes
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/21943
|
Resumo: |
Since December 2015, when the then president of the Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo Cunha, accepted the request for impeachment against Dilma Rousseff, an intense public debate began that permeated political spaces, communication vehicles, universities, social media among many other public and private spaces. Although a process of impeachment is constitutionally foreseen, a good deal of the speeches were made to convey the idea that it was nothing more than a parliamentary coup. The objective of this research was to analyze the argumentative strategies that proposed the illegitimacy of the impeachment process and to verify if there was proximity to the concept of logical evidence, with the objective of refuting the formal accusations and invalidating the denunciations or if they approached the concept of evidence psychological, with the aim of emphasizing the opinion plan and, therefore, fomenting the controversy as a defense strategy. For that, we analyze the speeches of four senators - Gleisi Hoffmann, Armando Monteiro, Vanessa Grazziotin and Randolfe Rodrigues -, held in the Federal Senate, on the penultimate day of the trial. The analytical base was composed by authors of the rhetoric, Aristóteles (2013) and Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca (2000) and more contemporary authors, such as Ferreira (2015), Meyer (2007), Mosca (1997) and Tringali (2013). The observations were made based on five categories of analysis. The first one demonstrated that the discussions did not take place in the world of truths and lies, but in the dialectical-persuasive plane. The second emphasized that the purpose of the auditorium, which was to confer guilt or innocence on the defendant, was diverted, at various moments, by essentially political discourses, which aimed to highlight the supposed damages to the success of the process. The third (ethos) and the fourth category (pathos) followed the psychological tests and analyzed how the speakers created the image of themselves and of the back before the audience, as well as the incitement to the passions. The fifth and last (logos) focused on the logical evidence, with the purpose of knowing what rational evidence the speakers used to persuade the audience. As far as we could see, the speakers made a strong use of psychological evidence and aimed to emphasize the defendant's suitability and to tarnish the image of all those who participated in favor of impeachment, without at any point in their speeches disarming the accusations that led to the process |
