O uso de ameaças diretivo-comissivas como estratégia de formulação de acordo em audiências de conciliação

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the main functions of directive and commissive speech acts in the negotiation of agreements in conflict resolution. And, specifically, the relation of these acts with the production of threats in the formulation of agreements in conciliation hearings, organized by the consumer defense organ, PROCON. For this analysis, we select five hearings entitled: Banco Sul, Brasimac, Gesso, Ok veículos and Rui Pedreiro record in audio and translated using the notations suggested by Conversation Analysis. Based on the theoretical assumptions of a performative perspective on language, formulated initially by the classical Speech Act Theory (AUSTIN 1962; SEARLE 1969) and applied by CASANOVA (1996), GARCIA (1997) and SALGUEIRO (2010) to specific issues, we started the analysis considering the supposition that directive and commissives must set the same category, because both acts are related to obligation. The first one refers to obligations imposed to other person and the second, assumed by the speaker/writer. Thus, we seek to investigate: the role of (i) directive acts in the negotiation of conflict and (ii) commissive in their resolutions. The data were analyzed from a qualitative and interpretative perspective, following the theoretical and methodological orientations of an interactional perspective in pragmatics. Some of the results found were: (i) the directives have a relevant role in the production of the different frames, constructed by the opponent parties: there is always two versions being disputed (the respondent one and the claimant one), and it is the use of directive which reveals these framings; (ii) the commissives are important to the conflict resolution: there is resolution only when the respondent undertake to do any action of claimant‘s interest and (iii) the hypothesis, that directives and commissives are intrinsically linked, is grounded, since, during the negotiations, the parties make use of threats of the directive-commissives types, which present, at the same time, a directive part and a commissive one. Most of the time, in the hearings analysed, the parties only reach any kind of agreement, after the use of threats by mediator or the respondent. There wasn‘t found any threat used by claimants which effectively has reached an agreement.