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 Convention...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | tesis doctoral |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2021 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) |
| Repositorio: | Repositório Institucional da UFRN |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.ufrn.br:123456789/45673 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://repositorio.ufrn.br/handle/123456789/45673 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Análise textual dos discursos Orientação argumentativa Argumentação interpretativa Teoria dos atos de discurso Pragma-dialética Acordos multilaterais ambientais |
| Sumario: | 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. |
|---|