Reformulação do movimento argumentativo de evidência legal em audiências de conciliação no PROCON

Abstract

By adopting an interactive approach, Gille (2001) defines argumentation as a process constituted by argumentative movements (AM) explicitly or implicitly carried out in interaction processes. Thus, argumentation comprises sequential actions co-constructed through interaction, which allow negotiating expressed or inferred opinions. According to Barletta (2014), legal AMs stand out among argumentative movements used to support viewpoints because they correspond to arguments that corroborate participants’ viewpoint by means of evidences supported by laws. The aforementioned author invites us to take a more specific look at the contributions from legal AMs to fulfill the main goal of conciliation hearings taking place at PROCON, i.e., conflict resolution. The aim of the current study is to analyze reformulations applied to legal argumentative movements (AM) in two PROCON conciliation hearings held in a city located in Zona da Mata Region (Minas Gerais State) in order to investigate such contributions and to add findings to studies about argumentation in the aforementioned institutional context. A qualitative and interpretive research (DENZIN and LINCOLN, 2006; SCHWANDT, 2006), which was based on Conversation Analysis, was herein developed. It was mainly supported by references concerning the theoretical (SACKS, 1973; SACKS, SCHEGLOFF and JEFFERSON, 1974; SCHEGLOFF, JEFFERSON and SACKS, 1977; POMERANTZ, 1984; among others) and methodological (POMERANTZ and FEHR, 1997) bases of this linguistic study approach, as well as by references that used such approach to study (re)formulation practices (GARFINKEL and SACKS, 1970; HERITAGE and WATSON, 1979; among others). The herein analyzed linguistic material was audio recorded and transcribed according to conventions proposed by conversation analysts (SACHS, SCHEGLOFF and JEFFERSON, 1974). The analyses conducted in the present study showed legal AM reformulations carried out by both the mediator and the defendants. Both parts presented the following reformulation types: confirmatory reformulation (or reformulation used as the action of confirming the understanding about something), summary-type reformulation, challenging reformulation (or reformulation used as challenging action), reformulation done by means of explanation, reformulation done by means of suggestion, root cause reformulation, reformulation ratifying the accusation, reformulation ratifying the viewpoint, reformulation ratifying the legislation, and correction-type reformulation. These reformulations enabled several actions in the course of the interactions and allowed the hearing to reach an outcome. Finally, the use of reformulations has generated important interactional benefits, regardless of whether the decision to reformulate was based on confirmation or disconfirmation purposes. Results in the current study allow stating that reformulations applied to legal argumentative movements during conciliation hearings may help the involved parts to reach an agreement. It happens because reformulations carried out in each participant’s turn operate towards the negotiation of conflicts triggered by the presentation of and support to divergent arguments, which expose different viewpoints in the interaction in progress. The current study concluded that the management of conflicts generated by divergent arguments was enabled by several reformulations carried out during the herein analyzed conciliation hearings held at PROCON, as well as that such management helped the involved parts to reach an agreement.