Dialogismo no discurso político: analisando a Comissão Parlamentar de Inquérito da COVID-19

Abstract

This work has as its object the dialogue produced during the course of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry on COVID-19, carried out between April and October 2021, to evaluate the actions and omissions of the Federal Government. From the long sessions of the PCI, we selected fragments of the speeches of the former Health Ministers in conflict with the parliamentarians. As a general objective, we chose to observe dialogism in the political discourse. And as specific objectives, those of characterizing the parliamentary commission of inquiry as a discursive genre; to reflect on the dialogism in the utterances made by the participants of the PCI; and to analyze specific strategies of the political speech present in the speeches of the ministers and parliamentarians involved in the communicative situation. Supported by Bakhtin (2006; 1997) and Charaudeau (2006), in addition to Fiorin (2016), Travaglia (1996), among some others, we highlight with regard to the PCI, in terms of its compositional form, which establishes a specific situation of interaction, a relatively regulated dialogue, which can be characterized as a hybrid genre, since it articulates primary genres, more informal and colloquial, predominantly oral; and secondary, more formal and structured, predominantly written. We see the PCI as a broad space that materializes linguistic resources of all kinds; we have, in addition to the question and the answer, the reply and, eventually, the rejoinder; in addition, there are quotes from authors, journalistic, scientific and legal sources, in other words, the PCI session is the space for clash, dialogue, dialogism, where utterances signify in terms of other utterances; and its performativity is related to the participants and to the conditions of their saying. With regard to the speeches of former ministers, we highlight aspects considered dominant: in L. H. Mandetta, credibility and justification supported by knowledge that convinces the interlocutors; in N. Teich, the discourse characterized by vagueness, imprecision, and gaps that undermine its credibility; in E. Pazuello, we highlight dissimulation, the strategy of silence and vagueness. Finally, we emphasize the importance of discussing the topics dealt with in the PCI; from there, we seek to reflect on the way in which language is action and interaction, on the way in which the study of language allows us to understand events, the position of those who hold power and our position before them.