The “Shadow Cabinet” and the denialist discourse in Brazil
This paper explores some characteristics of the denialist discourse, such as its apparent process of legitimacy and its prototypical enunciator. The analysis is based on public declarations made by members of the so called “shadow cabinet” or “parallel cabinet” – a supportive group to the president...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2021 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Associação Brasileira de Linguística (ABRALIN) |
| Repositorio: | Cadernos de Linguística |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs3.cadernos.abralin.org:article/427 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://cadernos.abralin.org/index.php/cadernos/article/view/427 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Discurso Negacionismo Pandemia Atopia discursiva Discourse Denialism Pandemic Discursive atopy |
| Sumario: | This paper explores some characteristics of the denialist discourse, such as its apparent process of legitimacy and its prototypical enunciator. The analysis is based on public declarations made by members of the so called “shadow cabinet” or “parallel cabinet” – a supportive group to the president of the republic and to other federal government agentes, during the covid-19 pandemic. The main objective is to understand the nature of the denialist discourse, especially its antiscientific perspective, taking as theoretical the Discourse Analysis, specially the work of Maingueneau (2010) about topic and atopic discourses: the first one is completelly accept by society but the second is relegated to underground. The results identify a discourse marked by a paradoxical character (its enunciators appear as specialists and scientists, but avoid scientific theses and methodologies), besides of argumentative strategies that obscure the meaning, what characterizes this discourse as atopic. In terms of legitimacy, althought the denialism has a great space and some power in Brazil, with serious consequences related to the pandemic, there are signs that denialist discourse remain atopic. |
|---|