Estratégias argumentativas na construção e negociação de evidencialidade no Procon

Abstract

This study is aimed at identifying, characterizing and analyzing the strategies of construction and negotiation of evidentiality used by participants in conciliation hearings at Procon and at Juizado Especial Cível from Juiz de Fora. As a theoretic and methodological reference, we have followed the orientation of Ethnometodological Conversation Analysis and Interactional Sociolinguistics. We attempted to show in the three conciliation hearings analyzed – Saudeplan, Banco Sul e Banco Green – the way by which complainers, complainees and mediators employ interactional strategies in order to attribute credibility to their talk, as well as the accepting/rejection of the evidences produced during the interaction by the other participant. As results, we identified as main evidential strategies the use of logical thinking, by the construction if a, then b and the entimema; the use of analogy; the document as a proof, represented by the contract; the common sense knowledge; the constructed dialogue; the identity of expert and the law. The analysis showed that, from the sixty-eight occurrences of evidential strategies, the logical thinking was the most used, totalizing twenty four uses. The other strategies maintained na average of nine to seven occurrences. This study still shows that the evidential strategies were more used by complainers and complainees than by mediators.