Tomadas de posição (de)flagradas no processo de (re)escrita de textos acadêmico-universitários do gênero dissertação de mestrado: (im)possíveis efeitos de correções e de marcas de revisão

Abstract

The initial questions in this master's thesis arose from this researcher's experiences with the revision of academic-university texts, and from her concerns in observing the engagement of each researcher in training, especially in graduate school, with the process of producing his/her text. These concerns led us to discussions about the (im)possible effects of corrections and revision marks on the (re)writing of master's thesis versions. This is an interpretive research, based on the perspective of French-Brazilian discourse studies and some psychoanalytic assumptions and concepts. Based on this, we deepened our reflections on text and writing; we also addressed the notion of heterogeneity (AUTHIER-REVUZ, 1990), as we consider important to discuss the discursive affiliations that the researcher in training undertakes (or not) to compose his/her text. We also understand that there is no discourse that is not constituted by numerous other discourses or already-said (PÊCHEUX, 1997). Thus, this research aimed to discuss to what extent corrections and revision marks produced in texts of the Master's dissertation genre may indicate a possible intensification of the positions taken by the researcher in training when writing his/her text. From this general objective, we delineated, as specific objectives, to survey the corpus of the research in the sense of a) investigating the recurrence of certain writing difficulties in the analyzed thesis; and b) analyzing to what extent some researchers in training are affected, or not, by the comments made by the review, in order to indicate the intensification of the positions taken in their texts. As a hypothesis, we believed that in the process of writing and (re)writing academic-university texts, in some cases, corrections and revision marks may have the effect of providing opportunities for a possible intensification of the positions taken by a researcher in training, to the extent that it produces questioning effects on the subject regarding his or her involvement with writing and results in a (re)positioning in relation to the text. As result, we observed that in all the interventions made by the revision, the interdiscourse is constituted by different knowledge whose effect can be noted through the interdiscursivity that affects the texture of the analyzed texts. We also identified evidence of certain subjective accountability movements of the informants for the (re)writing of their text and certain discursivities that allowed us to perceive the singular way in which each informant engaged in the (re)writing of his/her text. In addition, recurrent writing difficulties from the formal point of view in the analyzed texts were verified. To this end, we evidenced that the research informants seem to have been subjectively involved, in a more apparent way, with the (re)writing of their texts at certain points that deal with issues related to the research theme; however, at other times, this investment seems to be of another order and less intense.