Da afirmação à negação do enunciado imagem meramente ilustrativa em acórdãos sobre incorporação imobiliária

Abstract

The scope of this work is to identify the meaning and the theme of the utterance “image for illustrative purpose only” present in two judgments on real estate development. With this in mind, the object of analysis is the dispute of meanings that the statement “image for illustrative purpose only” may cause: on the one hand, there is the author / consumer who, attracted by the visual utterance of advertising, applied to a particular immovable property; on the other hand, there is the defendant / real estate developer, which disregards the visual text and uses the mentioned verbal statement in order not to be responsible for the immovable property delivered to the consumer. In this regard, the question that guided this study stands out: based on judicial decisions (judgments), how does the subjectivity of language manifest itself from such utterances? In order to carry out this research, the dialectical approach methodwas used with a qualitative study and with a mapping of the total or partial citations of the utterance “image for illustrative purpose only” in the two particular lawsuits chosen for this study; then, the selection criteria (proclaimed, homogeneity and synchronicity) were issued to judicial decisions (judgments) and due to the excerpts of the utterance to be examined in stages (description, analysis and partial considerations). Regarding the theoretical field of this thesis, different studies were used tosupport the development of the analysis, including: the concepts of utterance, discourse genres, ideological sign, dialogism, active responsiveness, ethical and aesthetic proposed by Bakhtin (2012) and (2016); and the approach of theme and meaning in the language in the light of the theories of Volóchinov (2017). Considering these theories, and after investigating the different meanings of the object of study, it was possible to notice that the judgments analyzed presented opposite sentences: the first with an affirmative decision (image trulymerely illustrative) and the second, with a negative decision (image notmerely illustrative). As a result, it was found that the subjectivity of language was shown in such utterances because the two judgments did notdecide according to the meaning of the statement 9“image for illustrative purpose only” (representation exclusively exemplary), but rather through their themes, a consequence of the expansion the evaluative horizon of the author / consumer interlocutor and the social voices existing in the procedural process.