Psychoanalysis

By | April 28, 2018

It defends the idea of that we are not owners of what we speak, we are interpellated by other speeches, that is, what we speak already comes soon, we only reproduce everything what already he was said before. This disciplines has linking with the Psychoanalysis and the Marxism. The interpretation works only with what it is written in the text. Therefore the Analysis of disdains it to the Speech. It prioritizes, thus, the understanding to understand the position of the author, why it said what he said.

Search, always, to know why the author said that. This is not in the text, is the context of the significao. It considers that it is the History that confers textualidade to the text. The expression ' ' analysis of discurso' ' it has excited, in function of its multiplicity of meanings in circulation, a series of mistakes. The scientific variety is well-known De Campos that uses the expression to identify analytical practical its. Over all, from the decade of 60, the study of the language for same it starts to be desestabilizado with new proposals. It appears the concern with the use of the language, extends analysis stops it beyond the phrase, are introduced component pragmatic and the social dimension starts to be part of the study of the language with the objective to fight the formalism, giving different place to the sprouting of practical under the label of Analysis of Speech. Although it is unquestionable the pioneirismo of Bakhtin in the picture of critical, at the same time in the negation of the abstract objetivismo and the idealistic subjetivismo, it is from years 70 that practical ones in particular conjunctures, been born in the meeting appear two of determined branches of the sociological and marxist tradition with proposals of reformularization of the lingustica theory: the analysis of speech of French line and the critical lingustica in the Anglo-Saxon world.


Comments are closed.