The aim of this study is to examine ways of writing experiences of the strange and different, experiences of the other in his or her otherness and experiences of suffering. The study focuses possibilities and limits for the writing of these experiences and aims at finding a tangible way of writing literature. Part of the aim of this study is to elaborate a proposal for a way of writing experiences of the strange and different, experiences of the other in his or her otherness and experiences of suffering.     The material for the study consists of three different approaches to literature, in which theories on literature or analyses of literary works are presented. This material is initially analysed in separate analyses in which conceptions, strategies and methods for writing experiences of the strange and different, the other and suffering are identified. Secondly, the material is analysed in a comparative analysis, aimed at finding similarities and differences between the approaches but above all to let the approaches supplement and challenge each other. The second part of the study consists of the elaboration of a proposal for a way of writing based on the result of the first analyses.    The result of the study is a way of writing in which the limitations and inabilities of literature are used as critical and creative resources. These limitations and inabilities consists of the violence of the literary naming and designation, and the boundaries between identities that render a complete insight in the experiences of someone else impossible. With these limitations and inabilities as a starting point, conceptions, strategies and methods for writing literature are distinguished and developed. A movement between nearness and distance both in content and form is identified as a fruitful way of writing that can mediate experiences and avoid to arrange what is strange and unfamiliar in these experiences into the familiar, as well as and openness for a manifoldness of possibilities. As distinct way of writing is distinguished in the metaphor, a literary device in which the movement between nearness and distance is made concrete. In the elaboration of a proposal for a way of writing these conceptions, strategies and methods provided the framework for a way of writing which doesn’t reduce experiences or close the literary text for a multitude of possibilities.

No description available.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T15:07:07Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 JoseAV_DISSERT.pdf: 573858 bytes, checksum: 1e09f3b81a5b0898141bbb5b84bd08a3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-09-27 / In this study we have developed a discussion about academic text production in the undergraduate course of Literature and Languages. Specifically, we are going to analyze the monographic text writing in order to verify the meaning effects created from the ways of showing other s discourses that constitute a written production. As a means to do that, we are going to answer the following question: How does a young researcher make use of a theory in order to be part of a particular scientific community? We aim to: 1) analyze the linguistic resources, like quotations and signs of cohesion that demonstrate the other s voice presence in academic writing; 2) observe the meaning effects produced through the ways that the one who writes shows the other s voice in the written text. Firstly, we have selected 23 (twentythree) monographs produced in the last five years by students from a Literature and Languages undergraduate course in a determined public university. However, in this study, we have analyzed just 02 (two) different monographic texts. To develop such an investigation, we have inquired Kuhn s concept of science, which shows the existence of different meanings of science production in the course of the centuries. It allows us to define academic writing as science production that develops and contributes to knowledge production. With the purpose of restricting the meaning of writing conception, we have relied on Coracini, who assumes that all writing production is the registration of the self, in other words, writing comes from the subject s intervention, it is to say that only an imposition of the self guarantees the subject as author of what he writes. We have as theoretical basis the following concepts: 1-) Authier-Revus s enunciative heterogeneity, that allowed us to analyze the written marks of the other in the monographic writing; 2-) P?cheux s reformulation-paraphrase and Orlandi s polysemy and paraphrase, concepts that present notions of productivity and creativity as ways of meaning production, and allows us to observe how the process of language production in academic writing is established; 3-) Rossi-Landi s concept of exchange-value and use-value, which consider language as a linguistic work, allowing us to verify the differences between use and social functionality in a determined theory; and 4-) Possenti s notion of authorship indicia, with which we have identified attitudes that make the one who writes author of his own text. We have verified that writing characterized for repetition and reproduction may develop a meaning effect that constructs the idea that writing production promotes an author, a concept or a theory. We have also realized that a written text that restricts itself to reproduce other authors discourses and does not articulate a theory with data analysis or with work methodology, when evaluated is approved and legitimates itself as scientific production. That demonstrates the existence of academic productions that do not develop any functionality of the employed theory. The text works as a means to promote its theoretical concepts, and theory. It is to say that the theoretical foundantion, which usually is a way to argue and sustain scientific production, does not have any function. Thus, we consider that the way someone shows the other s discourse in academic writing may work as a way to underline what the other asserts to the detriment of the researcher s words. This fact allows us to comprehend that a way of writing may evidence a meaning effect of the author s, theory s or theoretical concepts promotion / Neste trabalho, discute-se a produ??o de textos acad?micos de alunos do curso de Letras. Especificamente, analisa-se o texto monogr?fico, com o intuito de verificar os efeitos de sentido criados na escrita a partir das formas de marca??o de outros discursos. Para tanto, buscou-se responder o seguinte questionamento: Como um jovem pesquisador utiliza uma teoria para se inserir em uma dada comunidade cient?fica? Os objetivos principais deste trabalho s?o: analisar os recursos lingu?sticos, como cita??es, ilhas textuais e conectivos, que marcam a presen?a da voz do outro na escrita acad?mica; e observar os efeitos de sentido produzidos pelos modos como isso se realiza na escrita. A an?lise centrou-se em dois textos monogr?ficos, selecionados de um grupo composto inicialmente por 23 monografias, produzidas nos ?ltimos cinco anos por alunos do curso de Letras de uma dada universidade p?blica. Para o desenvolvimento da investiga??o, aplicou-se o conceito de Kuhn, que aponta para a exist?ncia de diferentes significados na produ??o de ci?ncia no decorrer dos s?culos. Tal teoria permite definir a escrita acad?mica como cria??o que contribui para a produ??o de conhecimento. A fim de delimitar a concep??o de escrita adequada ? investiga??o, o estudo baseou-se na ideia de Coracini de que toda escrita ? a inscri??o do si, ou seja, a produ??o escrita parte de uma interven??o do sujeito, e apenas uma imposi??o do eu o garante como autor do que escreve. A fundamenta??o te?rica para realiza??o deste estudo abrange os seguintes conceitos: a heterogeneidade enunciativa de Authier-Revuz, que possibilitou analisar as marca??es do outro na escrita monogr?fica; a reformula??o-par?frase de P?cheux e a polissemia e a par?frase de Orlandi, que apresentam as no??es de produtividade e criatividade como formas de produ??o de sentidos e permitem observar como se estabelece o processo de produ??o da linguagem na escrita acad?mica; valor de troca e valor de uso de Rossi-Landi, que considera a linguagem como trabalho lingu?stico, o que possibilita verificar as diferen?as de uso e a funcionalidade social de uma teoria; e a no??o de ind?cios de autoria, apresentada por Possenti, atrav?s da qual identificaram-se atitudes que configuram o locutor de um texto como seu autor. Verificou-se que a escrita caracterizada pela repeti??o e reprodu??o pode desenvolver um efeito de sentido portador da ideia de promo??o de um autor, um conceito ou uma teoria. Por?m, mesmo quando a escrita se limita a reproduzir os discursos de outros autores e n?o articula a teoria ? an?lise de dados ou ? metodologia, o trabalho avaliado obt?m aprova??o e legitima-se como produ??o cient?fica. Isso indica a exist?ncia de produ??es acad?micas que n?o desenvolvem a funcionalidade da teoria empregada. Nesses casos, o texto circula a fim de promover a fundamenta??o te?rica, e esta, que normalmente se configura como argumenta??o e sustenta??o da produ??o cient?fica, n?o exerce fun??o no trabalho realizado. Assim, as marca??es do outro na escrita acad?mica destacam afirma??es alheias em detrimento do dizer do pesquisador. O modo de escrita pode, portanto, evidenciar um efeito de sentido de promo??o de um autor, de uma teoria ou de conceitos te?ricos

Contemporary Canadian prairie women poets write about the mother figure to counter maternal suppression and the homogenization of maternal representations in literature. Critics, like Marianne Hirsch and Andrea O’Reilly, insist that mothers tell their own stories, yet many mothers are unable to. Daughter and mother stories, Jo Malin argues, overlap. The mother “becomes a subject, or rather an ‘intersubject’” in the text (2). Literary depictions of daughter-mother or mother-child intersubjectivities, however, are not confined to auto/biographical or fictional narratives. As a genre and potential site for representing maternal subjectivities, poetry continues to reside on the margins of motherhood studies and literary criticism. In the following chapters, I examine the writing strategies of selected poets and their representations of mothers specific to three transformative occasions: mourning mother-loss, becoming a mother, and reclaiming a maternal lineage. Several daughter-poets adapt the elegy to remember their deceased mothers and to maintain a connection with them. In accord with Tanis MacDonald and Priscila Uppal, these poets resist closure and interrogate the past. Moreover, they counter maternal absence and preserve her subjectivity in their texts. Similarly, a number of mother-poets begin constructing their mother-child (self-other) relationship prior to childbirth. Drawing on Lisa Guenther’s notions of “birth as a gift of the feminine other” and welcoming the stranger (49), as well as Emily Jeremiah’s link between “‘maternal’ mutuality” and writing and reading practices (“Trouble” 13), I investigate poetic strategies for negotiating and engaging with the “other,” the unborn/newborn and the reader. Other poets explore and interweave bits of stories, memories, dreams and inklings into their own motherlines, an identification with their matrilineage. Poetic discourse(s) reveal the limits of language, but also attest to the benefits of extra-linguistic qualities that poetry provides. The poets I study here make room for the interplay of language and what lies beyond language, engaging the reader and augmenting perceptions of the maternal subject. They offer new ways of signifying maternal subjectivities and relationships, and therefore contribute to the ongoing research into the ever-changing relations among maternal and cultural ideologies, mothering and feminisms, and regional women’s literatures. / May 2016