Banca de DEFESA: GIRLLAYNNE GLEYKA BEZERRA DOS SANTOS MARQUES

Uma banca de DEFESA de DOUTORADO foi cadastrada pelo programa.
STUDENT : GIRLLAYNNE GLEYKA BEZERRA DOS SANTOS MARQUES
DATE: 01/03/2024
TIME: 14:00
LOCAL: Híbrido
TITLE:

Irony as a Strategy of (Im)Politeness in the 2018 Presidential Debates

KEY WORDS:

 Irony. (Im)politeness. Electoral debates. Rapport management.

PAGES: 400
BIG AREA: Lingüística, Letras e Artes
AREA: Lingüística
SUMMARY:

This research discusses how irony as a discursive strategy (Hutcheon, 2000; Brait, 2008) relates to events of (im)politeness (Marques; Barros; Costa, 2015). It conceives both phenomena in their interactional dimension, both through the inferential character of ironic meaning and the evaluative character of (im)politeness (Eelen, 2001; Culpeper, 2011b). Thus, the role of irony in (im)politeness is investigated through televised electoral debates held during the presidential dispute of the 2018 Brazilian elections. The electoral debate genre was chosen due to its close relationship with irony (Aristóteles, 2007) and with (im)politeness, particularly when it comes to face work (Tracy, 2017). Furthermore, it is important to investigate these phenomena in the electoral debate due to the paradigmatic nature of this discursive practice for other forms of political behavior, recently marked by increasingly offensive speeches (Wodak; Culpeper; Semino, 2021). It starts from a conception of irony as a discursive strategy, which as such is located in the dimension of interaction, being particularly characterized by its critical nature (Hutcheon, 2000). On the other hand, the work considers that the ironic phenomenon has functions other than offense, such as humor, but also emotional control and status elevation (Dews; Kaplan; Winner, 2007). Furthermore, these functions can coexist and overlap, as irony, structured in circumlocution, presents itself in an ambiguous way, a phenomenon that has conventionally been called tinting (Colston, 2007). Considering criticism as the main function of irony, it is assumed that this discursive resource tends to impolite events; However, the first mentions of irony in the field approached it as a politeness strategy, as it allows the creation of bonds of identification, as in Brown and Levinson (1987), or as a way of carrying out criticism in an indirect way, which would be considered less offensive than a direct criticism, as in Leech (1983). This occurs due to a focus in these initial studies on politeness, conceiving impoliteness only in terms of opposition. At the beginning of the 21st century, new works (Eelen 2001; Watts, 2003; Culpeper, 2011b), based on the perspective that speakers construct about the events in which they are involved, defend the use of the term (im)politeness, connecting the two phenomena and effectively conceiving its effects in the interaction dimension. This is the stance defended in this work, which we operationalize here through the notion of rapport
management (Spencer-Oatey, 2005). Thus, concepts such as evaluation, judgment and relationship become central, allowing the exploration of (im)politeness as face work (Goffman, 2011), relating the phenomenon with irony in these terms (Tselika, 2015). Therefore, the research aims to clarify the ways in which irony acts in electoral debates as a strategy of (im)politeness, particularly in its character of face work. It also outlines which aspects of ironic enunciation mitigate the offensive potential of its critical nature or, on the other hand, which circumstances of the use of irony could intensify the offense. In this way, the research is characterized as interpretative in nature, elucidating the processes involved in the construction of meanings, ironic or (im)polite, and investigating the discursive effects generated by the use of these resources, particularly those aspects that impact the face, given the centrality this category for the discursive practice of electoral debate. Thus, initially, the interactional organization of the electoral debate was analyzed, identifying its structural aspects and their relevance for interaction. Next, it was observed how rapport management occurred (whether for challenge, neglect, maintenance or improvement) in interactional exchanges between candidates. Finally, occurrences of irony were recorded, detailing their functions and analyzing their relationships with rapport management. These procedures made it possible to relate aspects of the organization of the electoral debate genre to rapport management, in addition to verifying the relevance of irony in the most conflictual interactions. Thus, the results indicate that irony was used more frequently in potentially conflicting interactions, given its high frequency in the interactional sequence of direct confrontation and in interactional exchanges oriented towards the challenge of rapport. In this way, it can be considered to be a preferred strategy for this type of situation, corroborating this finding with the prevalence, in interactions using irony, of rapport management towards defiance or negligence. It was also noted that the use of irony was also relevant for face work, as, even though they were a minority, some occurrences of irony appeared in more harmonious contexts, which highlighted the other functions of irony, such as humor and elevation of status. In this way, irony acted, in the 2018 electoral debates, not only as a resource of criticism, catalyzing occurrences of impoliteness, but also performed relevant functions for face work, in conflictual and balanced situations, demonstrating its relevance for managing the rapport in different directions.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Presidente - 1767200 - MARIA MEDIANEIRA DE SOUZA
Interno - ***.763.924-** - JOSE HERBERTT NEVES FLORENCIO - UFCG
Externa à Instituição - LILIAN NOEMIA TORRES DE MELO GUIMARÃES - UFRPE
Externa à Instituição - KAZUE SAITO MONTEIRO DE BARROS - UFPE
Externa à Instituição - GISELDA DOS SANTOS COSTA - UFPI