A construção do sentido em dissertações argumentativas: ressignificando a produção escrita no ensino médio
| Ano de defesa: | 2015 |
|---|---|
| Autor(a) principal: | |
| Orientador(a): | |
| Banca de defesa: | |
| Tipo de documento: | Tese |
| Tipo de acesso: | Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: | por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Federal da Paraíba
Brasil Linguística e ensino Programa de Pós-Graduação em Linguística UFPB |
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
| Departamento: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
| País: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: | |
| Link de acesso: | https://repositorio.ufpb.br/jspui/handle/tede/7693 |
Resumo: | There are countless social situations in which subjects must take a placement, issue an opinion, present justifications to legitimize the thesis and/or refute contrary opinions. That is, in social life, often, we are called to discursive practice the argumentation, which can be defined as a social activity of fundamentally dialogical nature. The argument writing plays crucial role in the integration of young people in social communicative practices developed by today's society. Given this role, the research that led to this thesis aimed to analyze argumentative essays produced by graduating high school students, checking what are the structural and discursive character of resources that draw students to write the dissertative-argumentative text. The hypothesis that guided the research was that students can build argumentative texts, mobilizing various structural and discursive resources. However, despite this, the produced argumentative essays must overcome certain limitations of the argumentative employed standard, which lacks more sophisticated strategies. Based on this hypothesis, we have set as a general objective to analyze the construction of argumentation in written texts produced by thirty (30) graduating high school students, checking what are the structural and discursive character of resources that draw them to sustain their point of view. As a theoretical basis, we make use of the work of Anscombre and Ducrot (1994), Aristotle (sd), Bakhtin (1988, 1997, 2002), Bunzen (2006), Ducrot (1990, 2009), Marcuschi (1983, 1986, 2002 , 2008), Platin (2005), Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (2005), Reinaldo (2001), Toulmin (2006), Van Dijk (1989, 2010), among other authors. As can be seen by the authors mentioned above, we do not restricted ourselves to a theoretical approach, given the complex nature of our object of analysis. The focus of the analysis was predominantly qualitative. The results we have come to confirms our hypothesis. With regard to the fact that most of the volunteer students can build argumentative texts, mobilizing various structural and discursive resources, it is clear that this is due to: the titles, mostly, of a kind suggestive and mostly argumentative; the appropriate division of paragraphs; the presence of different text blocks (introduction, development and conclusion), even in texts that were not properly divided into paragraphs; the presence of a thesis to be defended. In what concerns the limitations to overcome, we find these are linked to the organization of arguments, since most volunteers build arguments with minimum standard (data, justificative and conclusion), taking us call to mind the low occurrence use of backup and refutation in the arguments. This latter finding is consistent with the findings in relation to the critical positioning, which is discursively constructed by means of the verb-axiological position that is assumed in front of heteroglossia. The subject takes a point of view, as it performs two major dialogical evaluative movements: assimilation and taking distance of other people's speech. The analyzed corpus, In dominated the assimilation of other people's speeches, the main strategy incorporating voices without the delimitation of unrelated sayings. The authors that incorporate others voice turn it into his own voice, because of its critical positioning. We found that the greater the distance, the more explicit becomes the responsibility of the enunciated, and the greater assimilation the less clear becomes the boundaries between speech of the enunciator subject and another's speech |