Todxs, tod@s, todos ou todes?: uma análise do posicionamento de profissionais da área de Letras acerca da marcação de gênero no contexto da não-binariedade

Abstract

In this work, we seek to analyze the positioning of five professionals in the area of Letters regarding gender marking in the context of non-binary, through the social network Facebook, this one, selected for being, in addition to the largest social network in the world, also, the network with the greatest number of discussions on the topic. As a theoretical approach we use the Critical Discourse Analysis (ADC), proposed by Fairclough (2001), which assumes that discursive analysis occurs through three different levels, namely: a) analysis of social practice, b) analysis of discursive practice, and c) analysis of textual practice. Thus, it is understood that it is critical because its approach focuses on the relationship established between language and social practices, molding each other. From this, our objective was to verify how and through which social and linguistic aspects the authors were supporting their arguments to justify their positions on the possibility of “neutral” pronouns, nouns and adjectives, in a perspective of the written language of Brazilian Portuguese . The methodology was developed in accordance with the principles of the ADC, based on the levels of analysis previously mentioned. In order for us to constitute the corpus of analysis, it was necessary that we search, through the search field of the social network Facebook, on pages / groups aimed at the LGBTQI + community and for linguistics, the expressions “neutral language” and “non-binary markup of gender". After performing this step, we adopted three selection criteria: a) the text should be on a personal page, it cannot be a comment or institutional page, b) the text should be authored by a professional of Letters and c) the text should present a reflection on “neutral language”. This resulted in the choice of five texts by professionals in the field of Letters. The analysis consists in verifying which arguments were favorable, contrary or did not show explicit positioning and also in the identification from which fields of knowledge were used to support the positions.