Authors: Marcelo Serrani and Catalina Sosa
This paper tries to account for surrounding discourses in society for the military suffered by our country in '76.
The body with which we worked is heterogeneous. On one hand, takes the television interview by journalists Haddad and Emilio Massera Longobardi broadcast on Channel 2 in La Plata, then America, August 8, 1995. On the other hand, there is a production made by students of CBC resulting from responses to a questionnaire. This constitution of the corpus leads to a first reflection on the constitution of our corpus and the corpus in general. The selection of the first decision is always an analysis as you cut more or less arbitrarily a fraction of the continuum of discourse. This is recognized as a materiality given, consisting of files of different types: oral or written, or a material constructed that can be generated through surveys, questionnaires. As a first overview of the discursive sequences that compose it can be synchronic or diachronic, produced by one or more speakers, be one or more sequences, and may also belong to one or more ideological formations. Memory appears
activity required for its constitution and in the same speech that composes it. Memory recalls and reconstructs the discursive operations and is what ultimately decides in the first instance under analysis. This first domain is added the current and prior. These three domains do not imply a diachronic succession in the discourse but result from repetitions, breaks and changes of its components in procedural time and are in the same corpus.
However, discourse analysis has not yet occurred, in our view, valid tools to establish and evaluate the body of work. If we accept that discourse analysis is a discipline of interpretation, governed by ethics and politics, and ultimately it is also a speech corpus and the analysis is inextricably joined in the discourse continuum. Seem to be a problem that only appears if we question the quality of the analysis as being conditioned by the very act of constituting the corpus. The demands of ethics and policy analysis conducted by Pêcheux for more than 20 years, extending to the corpus as the only possibility of stringency. But if we consider the problem in all its magnitude, we see that we do not have regular and consistent parameters to analyze the context, empirical subjects (as producers of the discourse) and sufficiently describe the ideological and discursive formations. We are confident that the materiality of discourse is produced and conditioned by the combination of these elements but we are still in a stage of discipline where the tools we use to describe and analyze too general, loaned by nearby disciplines, and as psychology, sociology, linguistics, descriptive logic, history, etc. We could also consider the studies as a transdisciplinary discourse but we have to know what is taken from each discipline, under what conditions, how to use it, what combinations be accepted, etc..
Despite all this we have a body like an interview with Massera and this interview because there was no historical conditions permitted.
On December 30, 1990 by Decree 2741 the then president of Argentina, Carlos Menem, pardoned the former military leaders Jorge Rafael Videla, Emilio Eduardo Massera, Orlando Agosti, Roberto Viola and Armando Lambruschini.
As described in the drafting of the decree, this was signed to contribute to "peace and reconciliation," urging the government at that time: "(...) it is noted (...) This measure is only political mechanism, constitutionally intended to create the conditions of national peace (...) is one among the many measures that the national government, sacrificing convictions obvious, legitimate and historical, is willing to promote to achieve the pacification of the republic (...) exercised a power of the executive branch itself, based on superior legal reasons, aimed to contribute to a genuine national reconciliation and peace "(Decree 2741)
On April 25, 1995 on the television program of Bernardo Neustadt, the then Chief the FF AA, General Martin Balza, admitted that in the 70's the army had acted "abandoning the path of constitutional legitimacy "and had obtained information through illegal methods. Further argued that there were no lists of names of missing persons.
In July '95, nearly five years after the decree which gave him freedom and about 15 years he had remained silent, the former Admiral Eduardo Massera accepted to be interviewed by the journalist Olga Wornat for People Magazine. There was a series of statements in defense of the procedures of the military junta, refuting the General Balza said. Massera said that "in war you must kill to survive" and added that "certainly some tortured and a few missing but I am not a murderer. "
Following these statements, on 8 August of that year Haddad and Longobardi in transmitting the eponymous TV in America, made a report to Massera nearly two hours.
In March 2005, fifteen years after the signing of the decree, Menem reiterated his position saying that the pardons granted in his government "brought peace and harmony" and recalled that not only pardoned "but also military subversive guerrillas. " (23/03/2005)
In this report, understood as discursive reference sequence, we want the quote Massera makes for perlocutionary acts and the book of Austin Doing things with words (...)
Massera: Excuse me, I will say you will. I talk about 9000 ... start talking about 30000. To condemn us for 700 typical cases, which does not mean that the 700 typical cases are missing because there is Miralles ... are ehhhh ... a lot that was in ... bah! other people who represent and the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, the last complaint is made where they ask for 700, 800 missing persons who are not 30000. Sorry, let me be clear, if one is gone I deal
Haddad: Yes, you, know that morality is not quantitative but qualitative
M. So I say, but say it is not itself create a climate that is what creates Never Again exceeding its responsibility, because he can not political judgments and I sometimes say no coincidence that ...
Longobardi: Here no judgment. Here, even you, have heard in the first paragraph we read that the book never admits that Argentina was terrorism, and questions the way they fought it, which is what we are discussing at this time.
M: Yes, but forgive me, it never says: "Everyone fell in the raid. Union leaders fighting for improved wages, boys who had been members of a student center, journalists who were not addicted to the dictatorship, psychologists, nuns, priests and friends of any of them and friends of those friends y. .. "Does this seems not to express an opinion?
H: Al contrario you. says, however, that those who fell today are not "had direct involvement in subversion?
M. I have to understand that yes. I'm not saying that there were no exceptions. Yo, here I is not no coincidence that that Rabossi. See, Rabossi translated this book is very good, a book of Austin, How to Do Things with Words Austin and here speaks of what he calls a perlocutionary act. The act perciona ... perlocutionary mean to say "you is a young offender "or" you are a degenerate criminal " Ud. está condenando, ud. está haciendo una apreciación a priori en situación desfavorable al que ud. está...
L. Bueno, vamos a ponerlo así. Convengamos que en la Argentina hubo una lucha contra la subversión, esto está claro. ¿Por qué no se hizo esa lucha del modo legal, abierto y transparente y conocido por toda la sociedad?
M. Pero la lucha fue legal, desgraciadamente lo que no se puede legalizar...
(...)
Lo primero que surge es la evidencia de la utilización de la referencia a Austin como una cita de autoridad para contra argumentar la tesis al que él mismo refiere respecto del carácter valorativo de la descripción de los desparecidos presentada por el prólogo the book Never again. However, the explanation for the example is wrong. Perlocutionary force is recognized by a verb and not based axiological adjectives. Moreover, the notion of "a priori" would think that trying to explain illocutionary force. In any case the type of error prevents us from recognizing clearly the causes of confusion. As long as one accepts that the reference comes from some kind of knowledge, at least in part, the theory of speech acts. But beyond this there is a fact and is the Austin and an aspect of his theory appear in the speech reference and this happens to justify the trial a priori ideological this in the Introduction of the book Never Again
In The authorized language: the social conditions of the effectiveness of social discourse "Pierre Bourdieu criticized formality Austin theorizing and a reduction and concealment of the social relations of domination a logical operation. From this perspective the use, but mistaken, one of the concepts of Austin is at least paradoxical: to resolve a semantic dispute which is supported by the description of empirical subjects submitted to the repressive actions of the state through a formalism that tried, in fact , conceal social relations.
The first resolution would be to understand the performative as facts and, therefore, are understood ideologically. This is that while we can always interpret events from the social historical situation where the speaker appear and the states. In this case, Emilio Massera, a member of the first military junta that ruled Argentina after the 1976 coup and was convicted of three murders.
A second resolution is simple but functional to our analysis: they never tried to explain the perlocutionary force, but to use Austin as authority to support the reformulation of sense of the word "disappeared" and their pre-built character. So this construction would result a discursive production of an ideological nature while a trial is not held in an empirical test. In a historic moment was assigned to identify the dead in battle in the field of subversion that classification that erases the event and replaces it with a sense that accuses the fighters of the military camp of immoral acts. The word that is attached to the "disappeared" belonging to the same conceptual field in the sense strand of discursive reference sequence, as found on causation is "war" and the noun phrase "dirty war" and "war against subversion ". Regarding the meaning of this nominations are agreed on the use made by Haddad, Longobardi and Massera, allowing us to say that we find three speakers for the same speech. By this same argument does not show any respect for making this nomination in the sdr.
To produce an effect of meaning on the "prebuilt" disappeared and within the domain of memory found in the sdr a series of paraphrase, this is significant resonances around the noun phrase "the fantasy"
M: ( ...) to try to clarify some things that happened society which does not mean I know all this fantasy that has been woven of horrendous crimes and so on., etc., etc.
M: There was in any case. If there is any case, we should try something that has not been tested, are all fantasies
M (...): (...) Desagraciadamente our society started with a fantasy that comes
far the fantasy of Scilingo not is a novelty. This began with the fantasy of a place famous Vilariño (...) Everything said was totally false Vilariño out (...) but unfortunately that was disseminated was easier to buy that version to buy the truth.
M: (...) we will re-create another fantasy (as opposed to the testimony of Scilingo)
And as a derivation of this causal chain that responds
the chain carries X to Y
Where X is usually a noun phrase determinant of the type name.
found the following paraphrase Massera's voice within the same space referential, while discursive productions:
"That man wove a novel Dri Bonasso"
"another novel, the flight" the newspaper Clarín, in another fictionalized story "
" invents a job working with me politically "
" invented around "
" All those stories are the stories they are created every day, every day, "
" Lanata has written a novel "
"black history majors, that's where the story is distorted"
These resonances built
significance not only that but also a real alternative and opposite to the one constructed by the introduction of never appearing in discourse as the other voice who dispute the meaning of reality. So, those are statements of this discourse are two possibilities: ideological representatives of the sectors involved in subversive or that discourse. Speech, on the other hand, is considered hegemonic.
"but who are those who have horrible things?"
Of course this is an argument ad personam but also remains in connection with the statements paraphrased the last string with which it shares verbs describing the action to state conditions and objects whose meaning products in this statement: invent, invented, written, count.
social results of this hegemonic discourse are recognized in the activities carried out by the ideological state apparatuses spreading and imposing this speech that makes a real stable and, therefore, responding to a logical necessity of the state itself.
As a causal relationship with elements of the second string appears:
"And unfortunately it is poisoning our youth I read in school and read and people believe, at face value "so they sell in schools"
(Continued)
