| dc.description.abstract | Somewhere between theory and practice, this study comes from some teaching experiences
and from so many concerns arising from academic work in/ of the subject Portuguese
Language and Text Production in a graduation course in Field Education. In such discipline,
besides an attempt to immerge into theoretical issues of/ about Field Education, which is
conceived as a “concept under construction” (CALDART, 2012, p. 257), we also developed
work of/ about the language using a specialty dictionary: the Dictionary of Field Education.
We aim, therefore, through the development of the present thesis, besides knowing more
about the specialty, also to understand how this dictionary works, starting from an
interpretative gesture based on Discourse Analysis – French foundation – as well as in the
History of Linguistic Ideas. Taking the dictionary under the discursive perspective is to
understand it as discourse, so, as “effect of meanings between points A and B” (PÊCHEUX,
[1969] 2010, p. 81), in view of that, the gesture of reading a dictionary of specialty may
become different from reading a language dictionary. The Dictionary of Field education is
now our “discursive object” (NUNES, 2006, p. 11), which means in and for subjects under
socio-historical-ideological conditions in determined social relations. Under the perspective of
Histories of Linguistic Ideas, the dictionary is understood as a “linguistic instrument”
(AUROUX, [1992] 2014, p. 70) that, in such case, specially, furnishes, starting from a given
language, the specialty. From this point of view, we read the Dictionary of Field education
as a discursive object of great relevance also as an instrument, considering that it is an
object of institutionalization of knowledge of and about Field Education and an appliance of
disciplinarization of these knowledge in graduation courses in Field Education, that is, it is
the discursive materiality that effectively works in social practices that it engenders. Thus, our
matter of research aims at verifying how the subject takes position in the dictionary, taking
into consideration the way that the political in/of the discourse works, establishing effects. We
covered many readings amongst the theory of Field Education, the object/ instrument
dictionary, and theoretical-analytical issues on Discourse Analysis to understand that,
sometimes, in the dictionary it is possible to identify at least two subject positions: one
position as subject of production of scientific knowledge and another one as subject of
militancy, that one crossed by memory of constitution of Field Education based, overall, in
social movements such as the ones present in Brazil in the beginning of the 21st
century. In
summary, our analytical movements show that the politician negotiates meanings, producing
an apparent consensus between the difference knowledge that constitutes the Field
Education. | |
