<b>The rewriting of texts portuguese didactic books</b> - doi: 10.4025/actascilangcult.v35i2.17104

  • Adair Vieira Gonçalves Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados
  • Alice Ane Napolitano Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados
Keywords: socioiscursive interacioism, didactic book, genres, rewriting

Abstract

Parting from the epistemological frame of Bronckart's (2003) sociodiscursive interactionism, on the theorethical-methodological supports for the teaching of mother tongue of Schneuwly and Dolz (2004) and the dialogical rewriting' conceptions (GONÇALVES; BAZARIM, 2009), we investigate how two collections of didactic books recommended by Ministry of Education and Culture-MEC- approach textual gender's rewriting in Primary Education cycle II. For its fulfillment, we will uphold on Bronckart's (2003) textual leafy, which contemplates textual infrastructure, discursive and linguistic-discursive components of action. The Português uma proposta para o letramento collection - focus discursive capacities in detriment of actions and linguistic-discursive capabilities, besides the writing/rewriting's proposals don't belong to the same textual genre inside a thematic unity. The Linguagens no Século XXI’s collection, in contrast, focus the three analyzed language’s capabilities, and, especially, favors the writing/rewriting inside the same textual genre inside the unity of the Didactic Book.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Adair Vieira Gonçalves, Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados
Mestrado e Doutorado pela UNESP; docente da UFGD
Alice Ane Napolitano, Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados
Mestre em Linguística Aplicada pela UFGD
Published
2013-03-27
How to Cite
Gonçalves, A. V., & Napolitano, A. A. (2013). <b>The rewriting of texts portuguese didactic books</b&gt; - doi: 10.4025/actascilangcult.v35i2.17104. Acta Scientiarum. Language and Culture, 35(2), 105-114. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascilangcult.v35i1.17104
Section
Linguistics

 

0.1
2019CiteScore
 
 
45th percentile
Powered by  Scopus

 

 

0.1
2019CiteScore
 
 
45th percentile
Powered by  Scopus