| dc.description.abstract | The present research develops a study about the theme of language use in the context of socio-educational environments, with the general objective of analyzing and problematizing the narratives of Portuguese language teachers regarding the oral language of young people undergoing socio-educational internment measures in the State of Mato Grosso. By adopting a post-structuralist perspective in the field of Education, it is understood that oral language not only names but primarily constitutes what it speaks of. Thus, this investigation is based on authors such as Foucault (1997), Skliar (2012), Veiga-Neto (2019), and Larrosa (2014). Authors like Masschelein and Simons (2021), Gert Biesta (2020), Rizzini, Irene (2008), and Rizzini, Irma (2011) have contributed to thinking about the relationship between schooling, deprivation of liberty, and teaching. In relation to
Linguistics and Sociolinguistics, the studies of Pretti (2000), Neves (2003), and Mollica (2009) are highlighted. Throughout this journey, the significant process of contextualizing Brazilian legislation regarding young offenders is emphasized, starting from the 1927 Children's Code, passing through "sequestration institutions" such as reform schools and preservation schools, up to the socio-educational measures implemented in Brazil since 1990. In terms of theoretical and methodological approaches, this is a qualitative research, drawing on authors like Andrade (2012), Zago (2011), Meyer and Paraíso (2012), and Jovechelovitch Bauer (2008). Narrative interviews were conducted with four Portuguese language teachers working in Socio-Educational Assistance Centers - CASEs, located in four municipalities in the state of Mato Grosso. The analysis of empirical material points to the following research findings: a) The socio-educational environment is initially characterized as a place of fear and apprehension for the teachers, but over time, the focus on surveillance and control practices tends to restrict and shape pedagogical practice; b) Narratives regarding oral language involve acknowledging orality as a form of resistance, yet they also present a delicate balance between valuing linguistic
variations (slang) and suppressing them; c) Approaches to oral language by the teachers indicate two perspectives: normative teaching of traditional grammar and sociolinguistics, with a constant dichotomy between oral language/written language; formal language/informal language; d) Finally, in the pedagogical work narrated by the teachers, there is a subordination of oral language to written language, resulting in a depreciation of practices involving oral language. In conclusion, the study leads us to recognize that there is still much to explore in the realm of oral language, particularly in the socio-educational environment, where teachers, through their narratives, acknowledge the oral language of young people as a manifestation of resistance. | en |
