A militância na/ da produção do conhecimento científico: uma análise discursiva do dicionário da educação do campo

• Ano de defesa: 2019
• Autor(a) principal: Flores, Lucas Martins
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Santa Maria; Brasil; Letras; UFSM; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Letras; Centro de Artes e Letras
• Palavras-chave em Português: Sujeito; Discurso; Dicionário de especialidade; Dicionário da Educação do Campo; Subject; Discourse; Dictionary of specialty; Dictionary of Field Education; CNPQ::LINGUISTICA, LETRAS E ARTES::LETRAS
• Link de acesso: http://repositorio.ufsm.br/handle/1/20980

Somewhere between theory and practice, this study comes from some teaching experiences and from so many concerns arising from academic work in/ of the subject Portuguese Language and Text Production in a graduation course in Field Education. In such discipline, besides an attempt to immerge into theoretical issues of/ about Field Education, which is conceived as a “concept under construction” (CALDART, 2012, p. 257), we also developed work of/ about the language using a specialty dictionary: the Dictionary of Field Education. We aim, therefore, through the development of the present thesis, besides knowing more about the specialty, also to understand how this dictionary works, starting from an interpretative gesture based on Discourse Analysis – French foundation – as well as in the History of Linguistic Ideas. Taking the dictionary under the discursive perspective is to understand it as discourse, so, as “effect of meanings between points A and B” (PÊCHEUX, [1969] 2010, p. 81), in view of that, the gesture of reading a dictionary of specialty may become different from reading a language dictionary. The Dictionary of Field education is now our “discursive object” (NUNES, 2006, p. 11), which means in and for subjects under socio-historical-ideological conditions in determined social relations. Under the perspective of Histories of Linguistic Ideas, the dictionary is understood as a “linguistic instrument” (AUROUX, [1992] 2014, p. 70) that, in such case, specially, furnishes, starting from a given language, the specialty. From this point of view, we read the Dictionary of Field education as a discursive object of great relevance also as an instrument, considering that it is an object of institutionalization of knowledge of and about Field Education and an appliance of disciplinarization of these knowledge in graduation courses in Field Education, that is, it is the discursive materiality that effectively works in social practices that it engenders. Thus, our matter of research aims at verifying how the subject takes position in the dictionary, taking into consideration the way that the political in/of the discourse works, establishing effects. We covered many readings amongst the theory of Field Education, the object/ instrument dictionary, and theoretical-analytical issues on Discourse Analysis to understand that, sometimes, in the dictionary it is possible to identify at least two subject positions: one position as subject of production of scientific knowledge and another one as subject of militancy, that one crossed by memory of constitution of Field Education based, overall, in social movements such as the ones present in Brazil in the beginning of the 21st century. In summary, our analytical movements show that the politician negotiates meanings, producing an apparent consensus between the difference knowledge that constitutes the Field Education.