The brô mc's indigenous rap: the argumentative construction of polemics

Abstract

In the face of an example of the controversial argumentative modality (AMOSSY, 2017), and using the argumentaIn the face of an example of the controversial argumentative modality (AMOSSY, 2017), and using the argumentation perspective in the interaction context (PLANTIN, 2008, 2011; GRÁCIO, 2013), by means of a qualitative research, we show the disqualifications of the opposing thesis and the person or group that represents the Opponent, as well as verbal impoliteness, materialized in swearing, irony and threats functionalities (KERBRAT-ORECCHIONI, 2006; GRAHAM and HARDAKEKER, 2017; DECLERCQ, 2003). Therefore, we analyze a comment and responses, posted on the Youtube, which dialogue with the speeches and semiotic resources circulating in the videoclipe Eju Orendive, by the indigenous rap group Brô MC's. From these excerpts, we realize that, on the one hand, those who stand against the demarcation of indigenous lands, guarding racism and, on the other hand, those who defend the rights of indigenous peoples focus on a polarized and violent debate aimed at for an agreement, but, with the intention of provoking the adhesion of an audience, according to the dialogical perspective of the argumentation (PLANTIN, 2016).tion perspective in the interaction context (PLANTIN, 2008, 2011; GRÁCIO, 2013), by means of a qualitative research, we show the disqualifications of the opposing thesis and the person or group that represents the Opponent, as well as verbal impoliteness, materialized in swearing, irony and threats functionalities (KERBRAT-ORECCHIONI, 2006; GRAHAM and HARDAKEKER, 2017; DECLERCQ, 2003). Therefore, we analyze a comment and responses, posted on the Youtube, which dialogue with the speeches and semiotic resources circulating in the videoclipe Eju Orendive, by the indigenous rap group Brô MC's. From these excerpts, we realize that, on the one hand, those who stand against the demarcation of indigenous lands, guarding racism and, on the other hand, those who defend the rights of indigenous peoples focus on a polarized and violent debate aimed at for an agreement, but, with the intention of provoking the adhesion of an audience, according to the dialogical perspective of the argumentation (PLANTIN, 2016).