Submitted by Caroline Falcao (caroline.rfalcao@ufpe.br) on 2017-06-19T17:58:16Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 811 bytes, checksum: e39d27027a6cc9cb039ad269a5db8e34 (MD5) 2012-Dissertacao-Elizangela-Santos.pdf: 1722630 bytes, checksum: ded79bbbb23bcdd6d3d771a781f58df2 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-19T17:58:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 811 bytes, checksum: e39d27027a6cc9cb039ad269a5db8e34 (MD5) 2012-Dissertacao-Elizangela-Santos.pdf: 1722630 bytes, checksum: ded79bbbb23bcdd6d3d771a781f58df2 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-02-29 / O uso das diversas linguagens como ferramenta de aprendizagem no contexto escolar evidencia que é possível construir conhecimentos por diferentes caminhos. Desconsiderar as relações entre as diversas linguagens (verbais ou não verbais) mergulhadas em nosso contexto social significa minimizar as diversas possibilidades de se promover a inserção dela na formação/constituição simbólica do sujeito; destituí-la da capacidade de desvelar conhecimentos de mundo, como também ignorar a construção sócio-histórica do indivíduo. Ademais, o sujeito através de suas práticas sociais entrelaça os seus conhecimentos de mundo com os do Outro, possibilitando a partir desse movimento a mobilização de discursos enraizados socialmente. Convidar para sala de aula a totalidade do sujeito tem sido uma prática que possibilita (re) conhecer a singularidade do aluno, através da partilha de experiências as quais entre outrasconstituem como forma de resposta a tantas outras. Respostas essas, que mostram que as relações sujeito –contexto e sujeito –experiência -contextose constituem pelas nossas produções de leitura, escrita e oralidade; pelas maneiras que interagimos com o Outro; pela a forma de pensar do Outro; pelos sentidos veiculados no contexto; as situaçõesvivenciadas pelo Outro; avaliar/negociar novos sentidos. Logo, a fim de verificar opoder da linguagem, especificamente, a visual, este estudo objetivou verificar os fenômenos da interdiscursividade e dos conhecimentos de mundo evocados pela leitura dela,manifestados em produções textuais escritas. Portanto, para a efetivação desses objetivos, treze estudantes do 7º ano do Ensino fundamental II de uma escola regular do Recife participaram de etapas de produções textuais com e sem a leitura de imagem; entrevista; momentos de interpretação da imagem e das próprias produções textuais.Do material produzido dessas etapas, foram analisados três textos os quais se adequarem ao gênero narrativo conto.A análise dos resultados demonstrou que a negociação entre a leitura de imagem, os discursos socialmente enraizados, os conhecimentos sobre o mundo, conjuntamente com a produção textual escrita, possibilitam no indivíduo a organização e manipulação das experiências sociais vivenciadas ou compartilhadas, marcada pela temporalidade a que se quer projetar a enunciação. Nesse sentido, ler uma imagem é muito mais que incorporar detalhes, objetos e cenários da mesma, é propiciar espaço de negociação entre as posições ideológicas de um sujeito que narra, age e enuncia. / The use of varied languages as a tool of apprenticeship in the school context proves it possible to build knowledge through different ways. Disregarding the relations among the diverse languages (verbal or non-verbal) inserted in our social context means to downplay the varied possible ways to promote its insertion in the subject’s symbolic making/constitution; deposing it from its capacity to unfold some knowledge, as well as ignoring the individual’s socio-historical building. Furthermore, the use of varied languages makes it possible a more active apprenticeship as the subject through his/her social practices intertwine his/her knowledge of the world with the other’s knowledge, making it possible from this movement the building of new knowledge.Inviting to the classroom the subject in his/her wholeness has been a practice that makes it possible to recognize the pupil’s singularity, through the sharing of experiences which, among others, composes itself as a kind of answer to many others. Answers that show how the relation of subject-context and subject-experience-context compose themselves through our reading, writing and oral productions, through the ways we interact with the other; through the way of reasoning of the other; through the senses transmitted in the context, the situations lived by the other; evaluating/negotiating new senses. Finally, reaveling that the mediation subject and context is delimited by the singularity of the language, be it relating to the production of the senses, be it by the subject’s socio-historical in a given context. In this way, this study has as a general goal to verify the interdiscursiveness and knowledge of the world brought about by the language, particularly, the visual one, through its reading, and as specific goals: 1) verify the knowledge of the world in the tales produced from the reading of images and 2) verify the interdiscursiveness in the tales produced through their reading. Seventh year students of elementary school, based in the campus of UFPE, have participated in this research. For the fulfillment of the objectives, a written textual production without the use of images reading, an individual interview; the use of a reading comprehension card, a textual production from images reading and the use of the textual production card have been used. The data analysis, of quality nature, has been conducted by the theoretical presuppositions of the discourse analysis –enuntiative linguistics.

Dans la Logique, Kant expose clairement le rapport entre sa philosophie et l’anthropologie. Si les trois premières questions (à savoir « Que puis-je savoir ? », « Que dois-je faire ? » et « Que m’est-il permis d’espérer ? ») peuvent toutes être ramenées à la question « Qu’est ce que l’homme ? », alors quelle anthropologie qui donne la réponse à cette dernière question ? S’agissant du rapport entre l’anthropologie et la philosophie, il existe beaucoup de débats parmi les commentateurs kantiens. Ils tentent d’éclaircir ce rapport soit selon un point de vue de l’anthropologie philosophique, soit selon un point de vue de l’ontologie fondamentale. Mais en tant qu’oeuvre kantienne unique relative à l’anthropologie, l’Anthropologie du point de vue pragmatique est absente dans ce débat dans lequel on peut dire qu’elle a été négligée. La raison qui cause cette situation réside dans la caractéristique empirique présentée par l’Anthropologie du point de vue pragmatique. Cependant, dans la lettre du 4 mai 1793 à Karl Friedrich Stäudlin, Kant lui-même a mentionné qu’il avait fait un cours pendant plus de 20 ans sur cette question anthropologique de « Qu’est ce que l’homme ? ». D’après cela, il nous semble que l’Anthropologie du point de vue pragmatique, provenant des notes de ce cours, doit être considérée comme une oeuvre kantienne portant sur « Qu’est ce que l’homme ? ». Comment pouvons-nous résoudre cette difficulté existante dans la saisie du rapport entre la philosophie et l’anthropologie chez Kant ? Peut-on la résoudre ? Si la réponse est «oui », quel sera un tel rapport ? En effet, dans l’étude du rapport entre la philosophie et l’anthropologie chez Kant, on néglige souvent le rôle clef joué par le concept cosmopolitique. Les trois premières questions sont ramenées à l’anthropologie dans le domaine de la philosophie en son sens cosmopolitique. Que signifie alors la philosophie en son sens cosmopolitique ? Quel rapport cette philosophie a-t-elle avec la philosophie selon son concept cosmique qui a été considérée comme la recherche de la doctrine de la sagesse (à savoir le souverain bien). Si l’Anthropologie du point de vue pragmatique peut être conçue comme une oeuvre kantienne portant sur la question « Qu’est ce que l’homme ? », comment devons-nous saisir son rapport avec les trois premières questions ?Cette étude cherche à clarifier ce rapport entre la philosophie et l’anthropologie chez Kant et le rôle joué par l’Anthropologie du point de vue pragmatique dans ce rapport selon les « concept cosmique », « concept cosmopolitique » et le « souverain bien ». / Kant articulates the relationship between philosophy and anthropology in his Logic. When the three questions (i.e., What can I know? What should I do? What may I hope for?) are reduced to “ What is Man?”, what answer should anthropology give to the question? Concerning the relationship between anthropology and philosophy, therehas been much debate among Kant’s commentators. They attempt to clarify this relationship either from a point of view of philosophical anthropology or according to a perspective of fundamental ontology. Nevertheless, Kant's only work on anthropology, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, was absent from this debate due to its empirical characteristics. In a letter to Karl Friedrich Stäudlin dated May 4, 1793, Kant himself said that he had done a course for over 20 years on this question of anthropology, “What is man?” Therefore, it seems that the Anthropology from Pragmatic Point of View (from notes of this course) can be seen as the work of Kant on “What is man?” How can we resolve the apprehension about the relationship between philosophy and anthropology in Kant? Can it be resolved? If the answer is “yes,” then what will such a relationship be? Indeed, in the study of the relationship between philosophy and anthropology in Kant, we often overlook the key role played by the concept of cosmopolitanism. The first three questions are brought to anthropology in the field of philosophy in its cosmopolitan sense. What does the philosophy mean in its cosmopolitan sense? What relationship did this philosophy with the philosophy according to its cosmic concept that has been considered as the search of the doctrine of wisdom (namely, of the highest Good)? If the Anthropology from Pragmatic Point of View can be perceived as Kant’s work on the question of "What is man?” then how should we comprehend its relationship with the first three questions?This study aims at clarifying the relationship between philosophy and anthropology in Kant and the role played by the Anthropology from Pragmatic Point of View in this relationship according to the “cosmic concept,” “cosmopolitan concept,” and the “highest good.”