A construção da moldura argumentativa em sentenças judiciais

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the argumentative structures in judgments. Theoretical supports of the research include the Argumentation Theory of Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbretchs-Tyteca and the Enunciation Theory of Jacqueline Authier-Revuz, with the postulates on the interlocutive and interdiscursive non-coincidences of saying and figures of the well saying – the speech as a personal act and in accordance with the laws of saying. These two theories were brought together for the following reasons: the first theory brings lessons about the argumentative process as a principle of a speech aimed at influencing the audience by means of the use of arguments and argumentative techniques; the second one is used to find the heterogeneous marks and their respective functions in the argumentative structures. The corpus of this research comprises ten judgments of the State of Maranhão Justice Court, from two judicial instances: the court of Family and Domestic Violence against Women and the Fifth Special Civil Court, both located in São Luís, Brazil. The analyses of argumentative constructions were done within the reasoning and conclusion of the sentences. The results showed that the articulation of argumentative techniques with the heterogeneity marks make the defended theses more persuasive; they also revealed the presence of both the no-ONE in the arguments and an enunciator subject worried to restore the sentencial one.