Refutação em perspectiva discursiva: a polêmica como interincompreensão em artigos de opinião acerca do Estatuto da Igualdade Racial

Abstract

This paper deals with Discourse Analysis, according to the French school, and it aims to understand confutation under a discursive focus. Many authors, among whom we italicize Ducrot and Moeschler, have treated this issue by an essentially linguistic point-of-view, without considering its discursive features. In fact, we could not find any other works which had already approach it this way we propose. We realize how much important is the discursive dimension when we try to understand confutation in a given language drill – related to a specific genre, that is, the estimating article. Thus along this research we elaborate a fundamentally discursive study on this matter, having as a guide hypothesis the idea that confutation supports itself upon the discursive polemics as inter-incomprehension. Therefore, this paper is based mainly in Maingueneau, in his Semantique de la polemique (1983) and Genesis of discourses (1984), in which the notion of polemics is conceived as lack of inter-discursive comprehension and it is described like as being a shaper of the discourses. An important displacement is made in this paper: we propose sometimes it is possible to see polemics emerging to discursive surface. That is what we defend that occurs when we have confutation. Throughout this research, we analyze confutation taking as a corpus some opinion articles on Racial Equality Statute, written since 2000, when the law was proposed. These articles were separated in two sub corpus, each one of them identified as a discursive practice, aiming at polemic links among the discourses involved that sustain confutative procedures. After corpus analysis, it was verified that confutation starts from translation and elaboration of simulacra of the Other, which are evocated and denied because of their hushing, what characterizes, indeed, a behavior based in inter-incomprehension.