Orientação argumentativa em acordos multilaterais ambientais
In the present doctoral thesis, we aim at formulating a proposal of textual-discursive analysis of normative discursive genres in the legal discourse while applying it to the analysis of multilateral environmental agreements. For that purpose, we have selected the United Nations Framework Convent...
Na minha lista:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Outros Autores: | |
| Formato: | doctoralThesis |
| Idioma: | pt_BR |
| Publicado em: |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
|
| Assuntos: | |
| Endereço do item: | https://repositorio.ufrn.br/handle/123456789/45673 |
| Tags: |
Adicionar Tag
Sem tags, seja o primeiro a adicionar uma tag!
|
| Resumo: | In the present doctoral thesis, we aim at formulating a proposal of textual-discursive analysis
of normative discursive genres in the legal discourse while applying it to the analysis of
multilateral environmental agreements. For that purpose, we have selected the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change as the object of our investigation. Assuming that
the meaning of the text is reasoned in such enunciative settings, we seek theoretical support
from the text, discourse and enunciative linguistics, via Textual Discourse Analysis (ATD)
(ADAM, 2011, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020); the speech act theory (SEARLE, 1969, 1979;
SEARLE; VANDERVEKEN, 1985; VANDERVEKEN, 1990), and the pragma-dialectical
theory of argumentation (EEMEREN, 2010, 2015, 2017, 2018a, 2018b; EEMEREN;
GROOTENDORST, 2004; EEMEREN; SNOECK HENKEMANS, 2017; SNOECK
HENKEMANS, 1992; FETERIS, 2017a, 2017b; KLOOSTERHUIS, 2006). Within this
theoretical framework, we aim at understanding the role played by the interpretative
argumentation process in the establishment of meaning within normative discursive genres,
based on elements of the legal pragmatics of discourse and legal justification (DASCAL,
2003; MACCORMICK; SUMMERS, 1991) as well as by adopting such a process in the form
of a theoretic-methodological formulation towards textual-discursive analysis. Following this
formulation, we analyze our object of study within the argumentative orientation level of
textual analysis, highlighting the components of illocutionary force — in particular the
illocutionary point, its mode of achievement and degree of strength — and the strategic
maneuvers adopted by the speaker/enunciator to orient argumentatively their utterance
towards a given communicative goal. By applying this formulation to the analysis of
commissive illocutionary acts of certain segments of our object of study, we explain how the
degree of commitment of the speaker/enunciator towards their propositional content varies
according to the manner with which certain discursive markers, categorized under the light of
an illocutionary-argumentative approach, affect the modes of achievement of the courses of
actions to which they commit themselves. In this process, we have classified these markers as
constraining conditional markers, which raise the strength of a commissive illocutionary
force, or permissive conditional markers, which decrease it, generating eleven categories of
markers related to the mode of achievement of their respective courses of action: conditions
of principle, frequency, context, specificity, locality, finality, subject and attitude
(constraining), and conditions of particularity, discretion and convenience (permissive). On
top of seeking to understand how the speaker/enunciator orients the establishment of meaning
argumentatively, such an analysis was capable of generating frameworks and schemes of
representation of the obtained data and of the interpretative argumentation process involved in
the justification of meaning from a predominantly textual-linguistic perspective. It is expected
that the proposal formulated in this research may be able to provide contributions to future
linguistic studies on the legal discourse and, more broadly, to any further research that might
transit in the intersections between text, argumentation and language. |
|---|