A escrita em diálogo com o outro: alteridade em monografias do curso de Letras

• Ano de defesa: 2023
• Autor(a) principal: SALES, Milena Océria
• Orientador(a): RIBEIRO, Mariana Aparecida de Oliveira
• Banca de defesa: RIBEIRO, Mariana Aparecida de Oliveira , FRANÇA, Katia Cilene Ferreira , SUGIYAMA JÚNIOR, Ênio
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal do Maranhão
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM LETRAS - Campus Bacabal
• Departamento: COORDENAÇÃO DO CURSO DE LETRAS BACABAL/CAMPUS III
• País: Brasil
• Palavras-chave em Português: alteridade; diálogo; escrita; monografia.
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: alterity; dialogue; writing; monography.
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: Análise Lingüística; Letras
• Link de acesso: https://tedebc.ufma.br/jspui/handle/tede/5017

This work aims to produce a discussion about the dialogical relations that the undergraduate student establishes with the discourses mobilized in the writing of the monograph. In this research, we problematize the monograph as an act of doing science in graduation, which also means the constitution of new knowledge in front of a research object. The monograph, being the last academic work developed by the undergraduate student, is also a space for possible reflections in the face of a problematization that may have arisen during the student's path in their training. In this sense, the undergraduate student is a researcher in training. Such reflections are visible in the ways in which the different discourses are mobilized in the writing of the text, that is, the forms of otherness present in the text are capable of denouncing the dialogue between the student-researcher and the authors and theories that are constituents of the writing. We start from the following question: how does the dialogic relationship between the student-researcher and the different discourses mobilized in the writing of the monograph take place? Our corpus is composed of ten monographs written by students of the Literature course of two public universities located in the Middle- Mearim region of Maranhão. We aimed to analyze how otherness is inscribed in monographs produced by students completing their graduation in Literature. The theoretical framework on which this research is anchored comes from the Bakhtinian Circle, more specifically, Voloshinov (1929) and Bakhtin (1929) with the concept of dialogism and the discourse of others; Authier-Revuz (2004) with the concept of enunciative heterogeneity; and Coracini (1991) and Amorim (2004) with their discussions on subjectivity and science. From this, the two major categories that constitute our analyzes are the following: a) referenced voices; b) unreferenced voices. The first concerns the voices that can be identified through the forms of reference to discourse described by Authier-Revuz (2004), such as: right speech; indirect; Modalization in Second Discourse; textual island; and direct speech with “que”. The second concerns the voices present in the text that cannot be identified from a reference, as they do not have markings such as, for example, according to, for the author, or even, they do not have the names or dates of the authors or cited works. The results obtained from the analyzes carried out demonstrate the undergraduate student's quest to insert himself and be recognized in the academic community, and this quest occurs markedly in the text when this student mobilizes the discourse of source authors as a way of validating and sustaining his research. In addition, the mobilization of the discourse of other authors (sources or commentators) occurs as a form of making the other responsible for what is said. This occurs in such a way that the concern with the impartiality and objectivity of scientific work is perceptible. However, it was possible to notice that there is an oscillation in this search with regard to when there is the mobilization of discourses in a non-referenced way, something that is not typical of academic culture. This demonstrates a difficulty in adapting to institutionalized discourses on the construction of the scientific text.