Dispositivos enunciativos na sentença judicial condenatória de crimes contra a dignidade sexual infanto-juvenil

Abstract

This research has the main objective to investigate enunciative devices concerning the argumentative orientation and the (non-) assumption of commitment. For this purpose, we analyzed the sentencing court’s judgment of crimes commited against the sexual dignity of children and adolescents within the family. We set, as specific objectives, to identify, describe, analyze and interpret: (i) the textual plan of the judicial genre under study, focusing on the compositional structure; (ii) the textual-enunciative construction of points of view (PDV) and (non-) assumption of commitment in sentencing court’s judgment of crimes against the sexual dignity of children and adolescents, by considering the textual and enunciative marks and categories – which reveal the (dis)engagement with other people’s utterance – mobilized by S1/E1 (first speaker-enunciator/the judge); (iii) the textual and enunciative strategies as well as the linguistic expressions that may contribute to the argumentative orientation of the discursive/textual genre under study and (iv) the positions triggered by enunciative positions taken on by the S1/E1 (the judge) in the management of the running and the hierarchization of the POV’s propositional contents evoked by S1/E1 and attributed to second enuncciators (E2) at the service of the argumentative orientation. The theoretical framework that supports this thesis is constituted by the postulates from the Textual Discourse Analysis – TDA (ADAM, 2011), in dialogue with linguistic and enunciative theories and with the theoretical and analytical contributions from the linguistic and discursive field of the argumentation. Therefore, in addition to the Adam’s assumptions, we follow the Rabatel’s studies (2008, 2011, 2015, 2016) about the PDV, the enunciative responsibility, the positions, the enunciative postures and instances, Guentchéva’s ideas (1994, 1996, 2011, 2014 ) on the mediative framework (strategies of (non-) assumption and distance from the other people’s utterrance) and works about linguistic aspects of argumention and legal discourse, among them Pinto (2010), Gomes (2014), Lourenço (2013, 2015), Bittar (2015), Rodriguez (2005). As for the methodological aspects, this tesis is a documentary research, following procedures of qualitative research with descriptive and interpretative basis. Our corpus consists of six (6) sentencing court’s judgements dealing with heinous crimes against the sexual dignity of children and adolescents under 14 years old, having their father or stepfather as their offender (rape of vulnerable). These sentences were handed down during the period from 2011 to 2013 by Juvenile Courts of the District of Natal. The analysis results show two movements made by the judge in the management of the POV: (1) the attribution and (2) the assumption of the enunciative responsibility. In the contexts of occurrences of enunciative postures within the phenomenon of the (non) assumption of the enunciative responsibility in the genre sentencing court’s judgement, the most evoked linguistic mechanisms by S1/E1 (first speaker-enunciator, represented by the judge in this study) were: reported speech (indirect speech and direct speech), the mediative framework (modalization in reported speech [in enunciation with “according to”, “in agreement with”, “for”], perceptive mediation, epistemic mediation), typographical marks (bold and italic), graphic sign (quotes), subject marks, verbal expressions, modal expressions (evaluative lexemes, adjective expressions and adverbs) and argumentative operators. The use of these textual-enunciative and argumentative devices, in the legal genre under analisys, reveals enunciative-argumentative positions of L1/E1 in relation to the PDV of e2 that direct the argumentative construction to the defendant’s conviction, namely: the agreement by means of the hierarchization and coenunciation of a common PDV and shared by L1/E1 (agreement between the PDV of L1/E1 and E2); the disagreement by means of textual and linguistic-enunciative devices that refute the PDV of e2 and pseudo-neutrality through strategies of distance, mainly in some contexts where mediation is used, specifically the perceptive and the epistemic mediation, revealing, in the textual and enunciative-argumentative plan, a pseudo-neutrality of S1/E1 in relation to the pov attributed to the second enunciators. In responsability contexts, we found evidence of the hierarchization of pov as argumentative strategy. The analysis also reveals that the management of the voices and the hierarchization of PDV are argumentative mechanisms marked in the textual construction, i.e., the selection of the PDV imputated to E2 (second enunciator) was made by L1/E1 and guides the interpretation and the argumentative construction in favor of the defendant’s conviction. Therefore, the management of voices, in the textual-enunciative plan, works, in the textual dynamics, as an argumentative strategy, motivated by a project of speech focoused on the persuasion and the production of meaning effects.