Marcadores conversacionais em audiências trabalhistas: estratégias linguísticas dos juristas

Abstract

The general objective of this work is to show, within a socio-interactional perspective of the spoken language, the presence of conversational markers and the linguistic strategies of the lawyers, used in order to lead the parties in the process to formulate agreements or to prove the factual objects objectively, without vices and the impartially. The theoretical contribution of this research is based on the principles of Conversation Analysis and Pragmatics in relation to the interface with Forensic Linguistics, Law and Labor Process, based, especially, on the work of Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974), Koch ( 2015, 2016), Marcuschi (1986), Caldas-Coulthard (2014), Couthard and Johnson (2010) and Coulthard (2014). Regarding the structure, this work is composed of five chapters: in chapter one, we present issues pertinent to the spoken language and conversational markers; the second chapter deals with Face, Politeness and Attenuation; the third of Forensic Linguistics and interaction in legal contexts. In the fourth chapter, we describe the methodology, constitution of the corpus and in the fifth analysis and discussion of the data. Finally, we present the final considerations regarding the research. According to the results, we point out that the primary purpose of lawyers is to end the dispute, respecting the legal principles and norms and, thus, the speakers apply the conversational markers, in their diverse functions, as linguistic strategies, since they are of extreme importance for coherent development of the spoken and used text, in order to attenuate the speech, plan your speech, express opinion, among others. In an attempt to formalize procedural agreements, judges and lawyers use mechanisms such as politeness, mitigation and also the paralinguistic marker laughter, which brings a greater degree of informality to the forensic context, benefiting the negotiations. Conversely, in hearings in which procedural instruction cannot be avoided, conversational markers are used, in particular, in order to contain the parties regarding the observance of impartiality and objectivity. Ultimately, the articulations through the use of conversational markers transform the speaker's implicit intentions into explicit semantic effects. It is clear that the greatest impact on the use of conversational markers occurs in hearings where the agreement is signed between the parties. Therefore, in hearings where there is no agreement, but a hearing of witnesses, the dialogue is more plastered and sequential.