Professores em formação inicial e a prática de análise linguística no contexto escolar: uma análise crítica de discursos

Abstract

This research analyses critically discourses of students of the licentiate degree course in Portuguese and its Literatures of UFSM to verify to what extent the Linguistic Analysis Practice (LAP) approach is seized by the attendees (ANTUNES, 2014; BEZERRA; REINALDO, 2013; GERALDI, 2011; MENDONÇA, 2006; POSSENTI, 2011; TRAVAGLIA, 2009; SILVA, 2011). This critical-reflexive approach is set as an alternative to deal with the linguistic analysis axis in the classroom, however considering it is relatively new in the bibliography, it is presented as a challenge to teachers who wish to incorporate it in their teaching practice. The main aim of this research is developed through the following specific aims: i) to identity the lexical-grammar devices in the light of the transitivity system used by the future teachers to address the axis of linguistic analysis; ii) to analyze the didactic activities made by the attendees to verify how they are constituted as didactic activities through the lens of the Linguistic Analysis Practice; iii) to systematize trainee teachers’ discourses, especially considering the following questions: a) what the grammar study is and why it has to be promoted by the school? And b) what Linguistic Analysis Practice is and how promote it? This research is based on Critical Discourse Analysis (FAIRCLOUGH, 2001; 2003; RESENDE, 2009; RESENDE; VIEIRA; 2016) as the theory of analysis linguistically directed by data, and Systemic-Functional Grammar HALLIDAY; MATTHIESSEN, 2014; GOUVEIA, 2009; FUZER; CABRAL, 2014), theory of microanalysis of data. From qualitative methodology, this research appeals to the concept of Meaningful Device (BARTON, 2004) to map the lexical-grammar devices used by the attendees to utter their discourses about LAP. The corpus of this research is composed of questionnaires and interviews performed with the attendees, in addition to the proposals of didactic activities through the lens of LAP composed by the trainee teachers. Our investigation noticed that the attendees, generally, appeal to their own experience as students to utter their discourse about working with grammar at school, which is characterized as “dull, boring, tiresome” and as a process in which is a prestige of unproductive classifications and nominations of lexical- grammar elements and concepts. As the trainee teachers in the first part of the course, like the ones in the ending, seem to contrast the LAP to the work traditionally made with grammar in basic education. To the first group, the main gain promoted by LAP is the reflection about language enabled by this approach. The second group, very often, makes up a dichotomy between LAP and grammar study. Even though they realize the importance and the need of approaching LAP in the classroom and present reflexive proposals of didactic activities composed in the perspective of LAP, they highlight, in their activities, considerably the axis of reading and present difficulties to compose proposals based on learning scaffolds. Overall, there is a lack of embracement of the cognitive process with advanced complexity levels and a satisfactory articulation between epilinguistic and metalinguistic activities.