As reformulações como estratégia argumentativa em audiências preliminares no juizado especial criminal

Abstract

This thesis aims to investigate the reformulations of the speech of a conciliator in preliminary hearings of the special criminal court (JECRIM) in the county of Zona da Mata in Minas Gerais. In this jurisdictional instance, the preliminary hearings occur before the offer of the complaint and constitute an oportunity to the realization of an agreement between the parties, avoiding, thereby, a criminal prosecution. As theoretical-methodological foundations, this work takes into account the Interactional Sociolinguistics (GUMPERZ, 2013[1982], 1988; GOFFMAN, 2013[1964]; 1974; 2013[1979]), the studies of Interactional Argumentation (SCHIFFRIN, 1987; VIEIRA, 2003, 2007, BARLETTA, 2014) and Evaluation (LABOV, 1972; LINDE, 1997; MARTIN e WHITE, 2005). We also recourse to the theoretic constructs of Ethnomethodological Conversation Analysis (SACKS, SCHEGLOFF e SCHEFFERSON, 1974), as well as the contributions of Maynard (1984), regarding the institutional mandate in institutional contexts (DREW e HERITAGE, 1992; DEL CORONA, 2009). Our investigative approach focused, specifically, on reformulations. (GARFINKEL e SACKS, 2012[1970]; HERITAGE e WATSON (1979); BILMES (2011)). This research is from qualitative and interpretive nature (DENZIN e LINCOLN, 2006), and data were transcribed according to Jefferson's Model ((LODER e JUNG, 2008). The results show that the conciliator, throughout the hearings, persecutes the fulfillment of her institutional aim, sometimes dissuading the parties to seek judicial protection or inducing them to not proceed with the process. To reach this attempt, she makes several reformulations of positions and its supports. In these interactional reformulating practices, the conciliator preserves the main meaning of her first reformulation, that conveys, even if implicitly, her institutional goal, promoting the erasure of some parts of the utterance to transform them into a gradation of discouragement. Using this argumentative strategy, the conciliator controls the meeting and reinforce your opinion about the non-continuity of the process, either by the filing or by the waiver of filing a new complaint, as well as she retakes bases that support her positions. Thereby, the reformulations on the speech of the conciliator contribute, argumentatively, to the fulfillment of her institutional mandate in JECRIM's preliminary hearings.