A interação fictiva e a dêixis: a emergência da fictividade em sala de aula

Abstract

The present study aims to analyze and discuss the emergence of fictivity in its various facets, and its relevance to the context of the classroom. As a theoretical framework, we adopted the premises of Cognitive Linguistics (TALMY, 2000, LANGACKER, 1987, 1999, 2008, FAUCONNIER, 1997; FAUCONNIER, TURNER, 2002), and more specifically Pascual's (2002, 2014, 2016) the Fictive Interaction in its various forms. We also used as part of the theoretical contribution the investigations on Intersubjectivity (TRAUGOT & DASHER, 2005) and Subjectivity (TRAUGOT & DASHER, 2005, LANGACKER, 1990) together with the analysis of generic Deixis (MARMARIDOU, 2000). On the methodological approach, we analyzed a transcribed oral corpus from a medical care class, and chose the merge of the corpus-based and corpusdriven paradigms, that is, we start from some initial hypotheses, but we allow the occurrences of the corpus dictated the questions of the work. In this way, we were able to explore as much as possible the most distinct instances of the phenomenon present in the corpus that, in turn, became the protagonist of this work. The subsequent qualitative analysis revealed the presence of four main fictional patterns: direct fictive speech, the fictive question, the question-answer pattern, and the fictive (or generic) deixis. Each of these patterns was constant in explanatory events, since whenever the teacher proposed to explain something more in detail, she used a kind of fictive expression, thus revealing that the phenomenon would play an important role in the construction of the pedagogical discourse. Among the most emblematic findings are the fictive / generic deixis that proved to be abundant in the analyzed context. We noticed that the use of these expressed the intersubjectivity in the speech of the teacher, who used the resource in order to draw the students' attention to what was going to be said. The main fictive deitics were the personal pronouns "I", "we" and the pronominal phrase "we". Each of them was used with the intention of provoking student‟s engagement, but with different degrees of intersubjectivity. For example, we noticed that the personal pronoun "I", that was less inclusive, it was the most intersubjective and more present in the explanations than the pronominal phrase "we", which appeared mainly in the face of the retakes made by the teacher. We also noticed that these fictive phenomena were relevant instruments for the development of the class, given that the fictive expressions were introduced during the explanations about the attendance, and also by the responsive attitude of some students.