INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE IN A DIDACTIC-DIGITAL CONTEXT: AN ANALYSIS OF LINGUISTIC IDEOLOGIES IN ONLINE VIDEO LESSONS AND COMMENTS

ABSTRACT

This article aims to identify and analyze linguistic ideology underlying the theoretical treatment granted to inclusive language in a didactic-digital context (video class and online comments) of Portuguese Language, from theoretical perspectives of Anthropological Linguistics (Irvine; Gal, 2000; Kroskrity, 2004), queer theories (Butler, 1999; Pinto, 2014) and Linguistics (Câmara Jr., 1970; Castilho; Elias, 2015). The justification of this study lies in the focus on didactic-digital contexts of wide audience as spaces for diffusion and clash of linguistic ideologies that publicly regulate the language, making relevant the discussion undertaken. The specific didactic-digital context we researched is video lesson publications about inclusive language in the YouTube channel “Português com Letícia” channel. Considering that our empirical objects are inserted into the virtual world with written and audiovisual registers, the investigation method is documentary and netnography. The results indicate that there is a confrontation between linguistic ideologies, one in favor of inclusive language, and the other defends a conservative perspective of language. The clash between both ideologies is strained by a prescriptive order that voids possible variables of language usage for communicative and inclusive purposes, based on anchored and naturalized perceptions of common sense, since the formulation of colonialism ideals.

KEYWORDS
inclusive language; didactic-digital context; linguistic ideologies

RESUMO

Este artigo objetiva identificar e analisar ideologia linguística subjacente ao tratamento teórico concedido à linguagem inclusiva em contexto didático-digital (videoaula e comentários on-line) de Língua Portuguesa, a partir de perspectivas teóricas da Linguística Antropológica (Irvine; Gal, 2000; Kroskrity, 2004), de teorias queer (Butler, 2003; Pinto, 2014) e da Linguística (Câmara Jr., 1970; Castilho; Elias, 2015). A justificativa desse estudo está no enfoque em contextos didático-digitais de larga audiência, enquanto espaços para difusão e embate de ideologias linguísticas que regulam publicamente a língua, tornando relevante a discussão empreendida. O contexto didático-digital pesquisado se dá pela publicação de videoaulas sobre linguagem inclusiva através do canal Português com Letícia, no YouTube. Considerando que os objetos empíricos estão inseridos na virtualidade com registros textuais e audiovisuais, a investigação é documental sob inspiração netnográfica. Os resultados apontam a existência de confronto entre ideologias linguísticas, uma em favor da linguagem inclusiva, outra apoiada numa perspectiva conservadora para o tratamento da língua. O embate entre ambas é tensionado por uma ordem prescritivista que anula variedades possíveis nos usos linguísticos para fins comunicativos e inclusivos, tomando como base percepções enraizadas e naturalizadas na mentalidade do senso do comum, desde a formulação dos ideais do colonialismo.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE
linguagem inclusiva; contexto didático-digital; ideologias linguísticas

Introduction¹

In order to linguistically integrate women and non-binary people, inclusive language arouses the attention and interest not only of specialized people, either in the opportunity to delegitimize this type of language in the social sphere, or in the purpose of validating it through its potential for representation in relation to vulnerable groups. To cite an example, on July 23, 2021, in the administration of Jair Messias Bolsonaro, former president of Brazil, we could see a criticism of Mário Frias, Special Secretary of Culture in the Federal Government (from 2020 to 2022), regarding the use of the pronoun todes (used as a generic form instead of the masculine one) in an online publication of the Museum of the Portuguese Language², on July 12, 2021. On the social network Twitter, the same secretary named as “ideological pirouettes”³ the uses made by those responsible for the institution, as we shall see:

The federal government invested R$56 million in the works of the Museum of the Portuguese Language, to preserve our cultural heritage, which depends on the preservation of our language. I will not accept that this investment serves to make public agents play revolution.

I will take measures to prevent them from using federal public money for their ideological pirouettes. If the São Paulo government behaves as a militant, vandalizing our culture, it will not do so with federal funds.⁴

The two texts above, which circulated in the public media, correspond to tweets published by the representative of the folder in his personal profile, in which the “ideological” framework is triggered, to characterize the language practices of the Museum and, more than that, to condition the interpretation that similar uses, aiming at not marking gender, are also pejoratively interpreted as ideological. In this conservative view, the linguistic choices of the institution are misaligned with its objectives of preserving the memory of the language, therefore culture, placing itself in favor of naturalization and the erasure of language issues that serve specific interests, such as those of patriarchalism (Moita Lopes, 2013) and gender binarism.

From Silverstein (1998), we note that the situation illustrated through this episode is configured as a use of the term ideology in a sense, according to which it concerns a collection of misguided, suspicious and doubtful ideas. In this perspective, the application of the pronoun todes erroneously contravenes the pre-established linguistic order, contributing to promote, in the linguistic-discursive environment, “games of revolution” by causing a type of blow in the identity and cultural constitution (provided by the standard norm) motivated by pronouns thus inflected. However, this situation of dispute not only amounts to attempts to preserve the idea of a common language, but also to the visibility granted to groups that are represented by inclusive language. The uses of pronouns, flexional suffixes and non-binary vocabulary constructions constitute possibilities through the linguistic-cultural plurality present in the sociolinguistic system. However, as in the secretary’s speech, we see a discourse of revulsion materializing, in which underlies a linguistic ideology that covers feelings of conservation/preservation and repudiation of certain usual forms of language. According to Laurentino (2022), linguistic ideologies correspond to the content that is indexed to the sign materiality of utterances that thematize language in discursive interactions, refracting the positions and values of those which preach about language phenomena. As Kroskrity (2004) points out, these ideologies are manifested both by those who utter them and by those who research them; but they also concern the operational concept used to treat them analytically.

The theme of inclusive language reaches not only discourses about the language by people from the public sphere, circulating also in other virtual spaces of interaction, summoning netizens who strive to support or refute it. The issue also takes place in didactic-digital contexts, that is, in online environments in which teaching and learning situations are realized through sharing pedagogical materials, such as Portuguese Language video lessons (PL, henceforth) (Laurentino, 2022). The didactic functioning of these spaces resembles the operations carried out in classroom settings, because they presuppose schooled teaching activities mediated by a more developed peer and, in some cases, interactions established not face-to-face, but in asynchronous chats.

Thus, inclusive language becomes an object of linguistic knowledge, being analyzed as one of the multiple varieties currently in use in PL. As we will see, it is not approached in a didactic-digital context with the purpose of promoting the substitution of the standard norm in learning spaces, but enabling the critical recognition, by students, of the existence of stigmatized varieties. It is, in this sense, that the National Common Curricular Base presents objectives of the axis of Linguistic/Semiotic Analysis (L/SA, hereinafter), to be achieved by students in Elementary School, among which we see: “discussing, in the phenomenon of linguistic variation, prestigious and stigmatized varieties and the linguistic prejudice that surrounds them, questioning their bases critically” (Brasil, 2018, p. 83)

In this article, we turn to a didactic-digital context that is established from the publication, on the social network YouTube, of a PL video lesson belonging to the L/SA axis. In response, there are non-synchronous interactions that can be called online comments, which, in general, seek to be responsive to the shared material, focusing, among other issues, on PL content in the formulation of utterances that materialize doubts, discussions, theoretical and analytical additions by various commentators, for example. In our case, we highlight a didactic-digital context that is around a video lesson on inclusive language, providing the approach of linguistic-cultural diversity in the teaching of PL in online environments of public access.

Thus, we aimed to identify and analyze the linguistic ideology underlying the theoretical treatment granted to inclusive language in a didactic-digital context (video lesson and online comments) aimed at teaching PL. To this end, we aim to develop intelligibility about a social problem, in which language occupies a nuclear role, therefore, we insert ourselves in the field of Applied Linguistics, in an undisciplinary and mestizo trend (Moita Lopes, 2006). We take directions from fields of knowledge that provide theoretical and methodological contributions to the study we undertake on language, for example, Anthropological Linguistics (Irvine; Gal, 2000; Kroskrity, 2004; Woolard, 1998), which gives basis to the discussion on linguistic ideology; queer theories (Butler, 1999; Pinto, 2014; Povinelli, 2016), when we refer to the concept of social gender, which supports the discussion on inclusive language; and Linguistics (Câmara Jr., 1970; Castilho; Elias, 2015; Castilho, 2019), a field that we apply when discussing grammatical gender in PL.

The discussion we promote is supported by the justification that it is necessary to investigate the linguistic plurality considering the constant intersections between language and culture, especially when the theme occupies a central position in the teaching of PL in a didactic-digital context, whose audience takes place on a large scale, presenting productive participation. In addition, through this study, we investigated virtual teaching spaces to understand linguistic ideologies underlying them. These ideologies can promote conflicts in any society and in any historical period, since they demand a public regulation of the language (Woolard, 1998). Finally, with this research, we motivate a discussion that dialogues with our present time, seeking to be responsive to social practices updated in the third decade of this century.

Initially, in this article, we discuss the role of linguistic ideology in saying (about) language, we clarify what refers to the perspective of social gender and elucidate, from a theoretical point of view, the functioning of inclusive language. Next, we present the methodological procedures that guided the investigation, showing the composition of the corpus of this study. Subsequently, we present the reflections on linguistic ideology, observing excerpts from the video lesson and online comments that turn to inclusive language through the use of pronouns and vocabulary choices. Finally, we present our final considerations.

Linguistic ideology in saying (about) language

Linguistic ideologies have an objective performance, because they materialize in the various predications about language, such as the discourses about language that circulate in the descriptions produced by linguists and in the didactic practices exemplified in the environments (virtual or not) of language teaching and learning. Irvine and Gal (2000) show that these ideologies are maintained in sociolinguistic systems and are supported by observers (such as linguists and ethnographers) through socially situated views, therefore, never neutral. The authors also point out that taking stands on the language connect directly to the way in which people conceive the relationship between linguistic forms and social phenomena, contributing to the indexation production on the use of these forms to sociocultural identities.

Theorization of linguistic ideologies is built considering the intersections and the mutual and multidirectional links of language with society, culture and politics. For the study of such ideologies, a definition of language as a social practice is necessary. In this way, language is related to the context, being understood both as part of it and as an element that constitutes it (Del Valle; Meirinho-Guede, 2016). Not all rationalizations that turn to language and communication are produced in academic instances; this is the case of value judgments enunciated by native people about their own linguistic uses or about others. The predications with this content and theme demonstrate, so to speak, a foundation built and defined by ideologies, which have pervasive, naturalized, and often unconscious performance in social practices. The ease given to normative approaches is an example of these perceptions that discursively emerge to guide, above all, to prescribe the uses of language.

Many judgments of this nature, points out Kroskrity (2004), are based on the criteria of true, aesthetically pleasing and morally good, which become foundations for the emission of evaluations and, therefore, for the promotion of linguistic modeling. The author asserts that this public calibration of the language is based on a social experience that is codependent, several times, of the underlying political and economic interests. Put in another way, the reasons why reverberated in these cases endorse a prototypical language whose circulation spaces are strictly related to power.

For the common sense, this hegemonic language, widely accepted as a linguistic prescribing device, is a specific variety that, at a given moment, “imposes itself and is imposed as the reference language by which all behaviors must be measured. It is the correct language [...] that by definition classifies all other possible forms as errors and inaccuracies”⁵ (Aléong, 2012, p. 148, our translation). According to Aléong (2012), a radical position can predict the existence of other varieties. So to speak, there are ideologies that contribute to the propagation of a homogenizing sociolinguistic vision, promoting the erasure of diversity, such as the diffusion that for each people there is a language, hiding the dialectal multiplicity existing among the people themselves.

Woolard (1998) points out that colonialism produced an equation with the language and nation constants, exporting such equation to the whole world not as an ideological and cultural construct, but as a natural fact. Therefore, the belief in a representative linguistic unit of a national community is what probably contributes to accentuate the relevance of the prescribed language. The author also highlights that participants in a community associate certain values with particular linguistic forms. In this sense, the representative varieties of socially vulnerable groups receive a negative value, while the other one, occupying the central status, is positively framed.

Regarding this issue, Woolard (1998) elucidates that uses by native speakers are conceived as signs of identity and loyalty. Following her arguments, it is possible to deduce the criterion of linguistic regulation that is applied there, according to which users who do not master the standard or, even, who defend varieties in relation to it, are not loyal with regard to the language that grants identity to a nation.

Finally, as well as linguistic ideologies are multiple (Kroskrity, 2004), so are their ways of functioning. From this section onwards, we realize that their performance can promote the activation of evaluative frameworks for language practices, taking as an example a prototypical language, we turn to the prescribed language. In the following section, our scope passes to the social gender and its relationship with inclusive language.

Social gender and inclusive language

Inspired by Kroskrity (2004), we understand that the possibility of thinking about an inclusive language results from a perception of language — born from the bottom of socially vulnerable groups, such as women in general and those composed of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite, transsexual, transgender, queer⁶, intersex, agender, asexual and more (gathered in the acronym LGBTQIA+). Therefore, in this section, our scope corresponds to the relationship of this language with the LGBTQIA+ community. Initially, the need to make explicit that this community is composed of people who do not fit heterosexual standards from the point of view of sexuality, as well as people who do not recognize themselves through the male or female social gender from the point of view of identity.

According to Butler (1999, p. 59), gender is understood as “the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being”. The author explains that the idea of gender is a construction, which does not point to illusion or artificiality, but stresses its characteristic as a regulated process, hidden under the label of naturalness. Gonzalez and Moita Lopes (2018) complement that biological determinism, one of the targets of Butler’s criticism (1999), is used to build identities oriented by heteronormativity, conceived as inherent to the human condition and, therefore, never subject to any questions.

Still for Butler (1999), every body has already been interpreted by cultural meanings, that is, it is already inserted in a discursive context that allows it to mean itself. In the author’s words: “The limits of the discursive analysis of gender presuppose and preempt the possibilities of imaginable and realizable gender configurations within culture” (Butler, 1999, p. 13). In the local hegemonic culture, the phenomenon is interpreted biologically, creating a corresponding relationship between gender and biological sex, interviewing or erasing realities such as transgenderism. For Jesus (2012), it is called transgender the identification of people who do not fit with the gender behavior attributed to their birth (or even before). In the same bias, it is called cisgender the group that recognizes itself with the gender of birth. Following Butler (1999), the author expresses, moreover, that this performance is determined socially and not biologically, and the person can act or not according to such role.

Pinto (2014) defends that the propagation of the idea of gender as a real, binary and hierarchical element becomes violent. In other words, gender is seen as based on a natural existence, taking place solely in its male/female forms and thus promoting the hegemonic social position of men, and one often faces aggressive cultural configurations because they are not only exclusionary, but also unjust. This scenario achieves support, for Pinto (2014), through the fundamental role played by language, in the most general sense of the term. By means of it, the effects of this violence are maintained and refused, the background of which is not but power relations⁷.

Considering that social gender is connected to language, Povinelli (2016, p. 209) outlines it as “the sexual differences encoded in language that apprehend these behaviors, values, postures and status indexically associated with sexual beings”. In this sense, it is precisely through the use of linguistic expressions that it becomes possible to style the body, as evidenced by Butler (1999). Through these expressions it is allowed to represent the body, but also to frame it in repeated markings of identity. According to Povinelli (2016), linguistic and pragmatic aspects work as mechanisms that contribute to activate symbolic systems that express values, domination and explorations related to gender and sexuality issues.

When we recognize the need for an inclusive language, we pass, indispensably, by three statements aimed at the idea of gender: (01) gender is a social construction; (02) in this bias, there are genders beyond the male-female pair and (03) arising from the previous ones, we need to consider them in language practices, putting them on display. This perspective is in line with the main flags raised by the LGBTQIA+ community, which, according to Gonzalez and Moita Lopes (2018), are: 1) equal rights; 2) social normalization and; 3) visibility. Thus, the claim that guides inclusive language, for it seeks to grant visibility to identities not contemplated by binarism, normalizing them and promoting the fight for gender equality in the social environment (Fischer, 2020).

In Brazil the debate about inclusive language in Portuguese has gained momentum, both in academia⁸ and in legislative houses. The development of bills⁹ demonstrates the interest of more conservative parliamentarians on the issue. However, the purpose that guides them is not always to promote reflection on linguistic and grammatical phenomena, but to generate opposition to the values and worldviews that are called upon through the use of inclusive language. For Barbosa Filho (2022), these projects see this type of language as a kind of threat to the values they carry. In other words, the authors of these normative amendments understand that inclusive language calls into question wills of truth that are fundamental to conservative thought, hitherto conceived as inviolable, such as the case of perceptions about social gender and about nation.

Finally, it is necessary to emphasize that the promotion of inclusive language is the result of discursive awareness in relation to the social role that language itself has in signifying the body. Therefore, the recognition of this potential makes it possible to see, from the point of view of the linguistic structure, the struggles experienced by people who do not fit into the rigid structuring of gender. In the following section, we deepen the theme of inclusive language, in order to describe forms of its grammatical functioning.

Grammatical gender in inclusive language in PL

It is urgent to outline, initially, what gender consists of from the grammatical point of view to subsequently describe its manifestation in inclusive language; first, observing the functioning of the paradigm of the pronoun ile and, second, appreciating the aspect of inclusion from vocabulary choices.

Câmara Jr. (1970) shows that gender corresponds to a grammatical category of morphic nature for names, providing two categories — male and female — that agglutinate both animal beings and things. Thus, the author understands that there is no relationship between the discrimination of grammatical gender and the gender role played by people – using the terms of the queer perspective. In this sense, he exposes that there is a semantic confusion in traditional grammatical studies regarding grammatical gender, since “[the nature of the genre] is usually closely associated with the sex of beings”¹⁰ (Câmara Jr., 1970, p. 88, our translation). The alleged misalignment criticized by the author is nothing but the result of the relationships and interconnections that language establishes with the environment, not being considered through the linguistic description of a structural aspect developed by it.

Still based on Câmara Jr. (1970), we visualize the explanation that in PL the masculine is an unmarked form, while the feminine is marked, therefore, a specialization. In other words, the masculine is a generic and homogeneous form applicable to human beings in their entirety. Thus, gender flexion occurs through the elimination of the thematic vowel (when it exists) in male names, followed by the addition of an unstressed flexional suffix -a (Câmara Jr., 1970). The author goes on to present allomorphs that promote flexion for the female, to name a few examples: tonic vowel alternation, loss of nasal locking and thematic vowel suppression.

Among the agendas of inclusive language, its potential is also unfolded as a criticism of the masculine as generic, considering it as a type of linguistic coding that makes women and non-binary people invisible. Alternatively, Bertucci and Zanella (2023) advocate the institution of a new paradigm, which is based on the personal pronoun ile, referring to the third person of the singular (iles third person of the plural): “this new word, this new pronoun of the gender ‘ile’ is an attempt to question the ‘norm’, cis-heteronormativity, that concept that says ‘the right is man, male and masculine, and woman, female and feminine’”¹¹ (Bertucci; Zanella, 2023, our translation).

From Castilho and Elias (2015), we understand that the word ile, as a participant in the class of pronouns, establishes the function of resuming a noun, which corresponds to the third person of the discourse involved in the conversation/interaction. Still in this bias, it is possible to identify that ile presents, from the point of view of its semantic properties, an anaphoric function, allowing to refer to an information already provided through the text and/or context. Through Castilho (2019), observing it by syntax, ile can occupy the position of subject, being able to prevail or postpone itself in relation to the verb of the sentence, agreeing with such word. It also plays a complementary role¹². From the personal pronoun ile, the possessive pronoun first person of the singular and plural, minhe(s) and nosse(s) is also defined; and from the third person of the singular and plural, dile and diles, respectively.

Bertucci and Zanella (2023) explain that PL is not flexible to designate, grammatically: 1) the person who feels neither man nor woman; 2) nor who feels now one, now another; and 3) who lives their social gender in a non-binary way. Taking this group as a reference, the pronominal use of linguistic encodings such as ile/iles, minhe/nosse and dile/diles cause strangeness, because they escape the hegemonic pair male and female. To compose the framework of his proposal for inclusive language, Bertucci and Zanella (2023) present examples such as diretore and aliade. In the first case, the flexion process takes place through the addition of -e, as an unstressed and non-binary flexional suffix; in the second, the thematic vowel -o is suppressed in aliado, followed by the addition of -e. In this bias, Fischer (2020, p. 7, our translation) argues that “in Portuguese, and especially in Spanish-speaking countries, some people have used ‘e’ to attenuate ‘o’ masculine and ‘a’ feminine”¹³.

A similar process occurs with regard to the indefinite quantifier pronoun todes, a term in non-binary flexion, whose use was criticized by Mário Frias, former Special Secretary for Culture. These linguistic configurations have a novelty character, since their uses have not conquered hegemony and are not part of the standard norm, however, they constitute a variety that is objective in the discursive reality of communities. Because there is no grammatization of these forms, Fischer (2020) points out that there is no unanimity regarding the rules for applying the non-binary genre represented by -e. The pronouns ile/iles and dile/diles, as well as the flexional suffix -e correspond to two possibilities to instantiate situations of inclusion through language, with other forms delineated from -x and -@, although widely criticized¹⁴ (Fischer, 2020).

There is also the possibility of making linguistic coding inclusive through vocabulary, which, according to Castilho (2019), is equivalent to the set of words created from the lexical system of the language. In this sense, through the speaker’s choices in view of the vocabulary diversity, it is possible to replace terms originally in the masculine by others that semantically cover a collectivity, thus non-binary people, women and men. Fischer (2020) calls attention, for example, to the words “person”, “society”, “humanity” and “human being” as viable substitutions for “man”, a term that, for the author, corresponds to an explicit validation of sexism in the language.

Fischer (2020, p. 11, our translation) also criticizes the use of the generic male claiming that its use reinforces the idea that all the people referred to are men. Thus, advocating for its avoidance, he clarifies:

Choose nouns that refer to the institutions and not to the people who are part of them (…). The senators are voting on the agenda. → The senate is voting on the agenda. The directors will choose the name → The board will choose the name. The pernambucanos love frevo → The population of Pernambuco loves frevo¹⁵.

Given this aspect, Iliovitz and Miranda Neto (2007, p. 9, our translation) criticize these uses claiming that “the replacement of the word ‘man’ by ‘people’ simply means that, instead of using a male word, one of the female gender will be used”¹⁶ and add that, with inclusive language, “we have moved from one extreme to another”¹⁷. In this sense, they induce that the exchange of expressions conceals an attempt at historical compensation in relation to the female social gender, oppressed throughout history, but privileging with the change: “‘historical debt’ of the male sex in relation to the female, for having underestimated it”¹⁸ (Iliovitz; Miranda Neto, 2007, p. 9, our translation). However, as we have seen, the statements brought by Fischer (2020) present collective expressions that are also masculine, as in “o senado”, revealing an inconsistent opposition. Inclusive language, when promoted by permutations in vocabulary, does not promote structural changes in word composition, since it uses existing terms. The invisibility does not occur, as non-binary people are also included in the community, therefore, respected for the non-exclusive marking of male gender. In Fischer’s words (2020, p. 10, our translation): “people are people, regardless of gender”¹⁹.

After the theoretical considerations, through which we revisit the linguistic ideologies, the social and grammatical gender perspective, we now move on to the methodological procedures used in this investigation.

Methodological procedures

Methodologically, based on Paiva (2019), we can consider this study as a qualitative approach, as it makes it possible to interpret linguistic phenomena, which, in our case, is inclusive language in a didactic-digital context — video lessons and online comments. Thus, the empirical object of this research is inserted in virtuality, requesting netnographic observation for data collection. Netnography, a method developed from ethnography, inserts those who research in a communication situation to investigate cultural practices carried out through a computer (Amaral; Natal; Viana, 2008). In addition, the study in question is configured as documentary research, because both video classes and online comments are documents, since they materialize the conscious and unconscious intentions of those who produce these materials (Le Goff, 1997).

The didactic-digital context focused on this investigation is part of the collection of data that constituted previous research on PL teaching²⁰. This set includes contexts produced through the publication of video lessons and online comments on channels (profiles of internet users) of the social network YouTube, namely: Professor Nolsen²¹, Redação e Gramática Zica²² and Português com Letícia²³. However, using the theme of inclusive language as a screening process, we noticed that only the third channel proposes to treat it didactically.

The data collected, until then not analyzed, refer to the teaching environment instantiated by the publication of the video lesson, whose title is LINGUAGEM NEUTRA²⁴ — O que é? Como funciona? É polêmica? Minha opinião como professora de português!²⁵, which has more than 76 thousand views²⁶, more than 2000 comments and more than 6 thousand positive reviews (symbolized by the thumbs up icon, when negative, thumbs down) by those who watched the material. The upload of this video lesson took place on July 12, 2021, the same date on which the criticized publication of the Museum of the Portuguese Language (using the pronoun todes) was launched on a social network, days before the opposition made by Mário Frias, former secretary of the Federal Government.

In this digital didactic context, we face a video lesson in which we find an exhibitor, in the role of teacher developing and articulating her didactic explanation from six questions raised by her, namely: 1) what is neutral or non-binary language?; 2) Does neutral language include or exclude?; 3) Should the school teach neutral language?; 4) Is neutral language really necessary?; 5) Is Portuguese a sexist language? and; 6) and you, teacher, what do you think?. To perform the task of answering these questions in the video class, the exhibitor uses both audio resources and visual elements (verbal and kinetic language, for example), requiring, for data collection, image captures²⁷ and audio transcription — following the rules for oral data treatment presented by Dionísio (2012).

Online comments, which also take place in the composition of this learning scenario, function as a technological tool to provide online interaction situations, and establish, from this, conversation between people in a kind of public and open chat, some conversations with more speech shifts, some open with only one. Moreover, it is possible to understand them as responses to what was shared (to the video lesson, in this case), starting from statements that present a position of either adhesion or refutation, either support or criticism of what was said, as Araújo (2017) pointed out. Online comments can receive positive and/or negative evaluation by other commentators, when the evaluation is positive by the channel that published the commented material, the icon used is a heart in red. Considering these graphic aspects in the composition of the comments, we use the screenshots to reproduce them, in order to appreciate the interfaces visualized in the technological device, thus catching them in their “natural” habitat.

We aimed to identify and analyze the linguistic ideology that underlies the theoretical approach granted to inclusive language in video lessons and online comments, both materials in the public domain and free of charge. Having said so, considering that this linguistic variety can be objectified in more than one way, our scopes are inclusion through the use of new pronouns and inclusion through substitutions of terms and expressions. Thus, we start from the following categories of analysis: 1) linguistic ideology manifested by the use of pronouns and; 2) linguistic ideology manifested by vocabulary choices, both unfolded hereinafter.

In the first category of analysis, we reproduced two screenshots, one from the video lesson and the other from online comments, as well as a transcript of the audio from the theoretical exposition. In the next category, we present another transcript and, in sequence, we reproduce related comments. These data were collected by sampling, which were understood as representative of a serial behavior.

Linguistic ideology manifested by the use of pronouns

As we saw earlier from Irvine and Gal (2000), when we face linguistic ideologies, we glimpse the relationships between linguistic forms and social phenomena. The connection between them is also refracted in the understanding of linguistic varieties, among which is inclusive language, allowing people to interpret, represent and sustain the differences between these varieties inserted in the same sociolinguistic system. Thus, the discourse concerning such language is not situated in a vacuum, however, they are defined as a saying about or saying the language, constituted by socially positioned looks, as these authors pointed out. The didactic-digital context in evidence is a virtual scenario in which there is an exchange (sometimes verbally aggressive) of ideas, in this case, about inclusive language. However, such conversation is based on a democratic principle, in the sense of providing the right to speak to users registered on the social network, with the condition that they do not commit violations of YouTube’s Community Guidelines²⁸.

From this, through Figure 01, we reproduce the visualized graphical interface when the exhibitor strives to explain what the inclusive pronouns that come into use in this linguistic variety refer to, seeking to answer the question: Does neutral language include or exclude?. In Transcription 01²⁹, also arranged in the sequence, we confront the speaker’s transcribed speech in solving this question, but also this: Should the school teach neutral language?. Transcript 01 comprises two audio excerpts from the video lesson, the first starting at 06min04s and 07min00s, the second between 08min33s and 09min24s. Let us see.

Figure 1
– Image reproduction of video class on inclusive language

Transcription 1 – Audio reproduction of video lesson on inclusive language

• 01 eu vou trazer aqui pra vocês um sistema da linguagem neutra que é o ILE

• 02 uma frase com o sistema ILE é assim ile é minhe amigue então aqui nós

• 03 temos o pronome pessoal né que/ que seria o ele ou ela o ile o pronome

• 04 possessivo é/ que seria meu ou minha minhe e um substantivo amigue que

• 05 poderia ser é/ amigo ou amiga aqui na linguagem neutra é amiGUE outro

• 06 exemplo o gato é dile aqui nós temos o que seria o pronome dele ou dela o

• 07 pronome neutro dile então esses são exemplos de um sistema de linguagem

• 08 neutra e parece bem esquisito principalmente se é a primeira vez que a gente

• 09 tem contato com essa linguagem /.../ qual é o papel do professor de língua

• 10 portuguesa? é: é ensinar ao aluno os contextos de comunicação e ensinar a

• 11 norma-padrão pra que ele consiga utilizar a norma-padrão nos contextos que

• 12 exigem... e existem contextos em que seja adequada a utilização da

• 13 linguagem neutra? claro que existem... por exemplo, se eu tenho o Instagram

• 14 é: com a finalidade de discutir e trazer fatos relacionados a comunidade

• 15 LGBT é pertinente que eu utilize a linguagem neutra nesse contexto? Claro

• 16 que é... se eu vou prestar um concurso público se eu vou escrever uma

• 17 redação é: pro ENEM por exemplo eu posso usar a linguagem neutra? claro

• 18 que não ela não está prevista na gramática

In Transcription 01, we envision the exhibitor dealing with the possible systems from which inclusive language can develop, granting, in her speech, space for the system around the personal pronoun ile, following the bias of Bertucci and Zanella (2023): “I will bring you here a system of neutral language that is the ILE” (cf. lines 01 and 02). Thus, it affirms the presence and use of other coding paradigms, which can be visualized in a purple rectangle, near the center of Figure 01, namely: “Other systems: Elu Ilu El”.

The position of the exhibitor, revealed when reporting the existence of these systems, demonstrates a linguistic ideology based on the dynamism of the language, and there is, in her view, no single or plastered way to instantiate the uses through the inclusion bias, “I will bring a neutral language system here for you” (cf. line 01). This perspective is the same that we confront when mentioning the idea of context to justify situational variation, “teaching the student the contexts of communication” (cf. line 10). There is, therefore, an ideology supported by a principle of malleability and flexibility, which discursively fills the didactic approach undertaken in the video lesson of this didactic-digital context.

It is precisely this potential that makes it possible to develop a specific personal pronoun, the ile, which has the group consisting of non-binary people as a reference, that is, formed by people who do not identify themselves in regulatory structures and crystallized gender behaviors (Butler, 1999). Thus, inclusive language is the result of a linguistic ideology because of the awareness of the symbolic role of representation that language has. By bringing it to discussion in this didactic context, we understand that the video lesson makes it possible to reflect critically on a linguistic variety. Based on this, the material does not seem to promote the simplification of the sociolinguistic field by homogenizing it (Irvine; Gal, 2000), since the didactic exposition makes groups of people visible through language, which are commonly unnoticed. Thus, the video lesson does not distinguish varieties outside the standard norm (Aléong, 2012), on the contrary, it transforms them into an object of linguistic knowledge.

Dialoguing with teacher education, the content of Transcription 01 makes it clear that the standard norm has a privileged space in the school, “teaching the standard norm so that he can use the standard norm in the contexts that requires” (cf. lines 10 to 12). This time, it becomes the role of PL teachers to present contexts that require this variety, for example, “to provide a public tender” (cf. line 16) and “write an essay for ENEM” (cf. line 16 and 17), but at the same time, to present others in which the use of other languages is acceptable, such as inclusive and its set of new pronouns. As an analogous case, the publication of content on social networks for specific audiences is cited, “if I have Instagram uh: in order to discuss and bring facts related to the LGBT community” (cf. lines 14 and 15). In this sense, the exhibitor, measuring the criteria of public calibration of linguistic uses, demonstrates discursive awareness, placing the development of this skill as one of the objectives of teaching PL.

In this bias, the excerpt of the transcribed speech does not demonstrate a negative attribution to the use of the pronoun, nor does it delegitimize its use, although it points out the possibility of strangeness on the part of those who will make use of the ile paradigm, “and it seems very strange especially if it’s the first time we have contact with this language” (cf. lines 08 and 09), considering the fact that there is, in the standard norm of PL and in many of the varieties spoken in Brazil, a grammatical marking capable of contemplating non-binary people. The belief that the strangeness promoted is only due to the configuration of new pronouns and new flexional suffixes is, perhaps, an insufficient perception. The adjective strange (cf. line 08) is the result of disapproval caused by a framework arising from a performance of language preservation, in this sense, the result of a linguistic ideology of conservation that, from the perspective of Kroskrity (2004), is anchored in one of the criteria of linguistic regulation — to be aesthetically pleasing.

Thus, it can be understood that the video lesson is not favorable to the erasure process that, as Irvine and Gal (2000) show, hides people, groups and activities developed by minority communities. When bringing the discussion to the (virtual) classroom, the core of the issue is to discuss linguistic-cultural plurality, awakening to the ideological dimension that representation in language offers, and not the replacement of the standard norm by inclusive language. Undoubtedly, the discursive consciousness that anchors in the theoretical explanation points not only to the different degrees of linguistic regulation commonly conceived by contextual variation, but concomitantly also indexes the rationalization of the position of conservation and maintenance of the sociolinguistic order, “and it seems pretty strange” (cf. line 08).

Although these pieces of evidence and reverberations are a discursive dispute in the speaker’s own speech, it is in the online comments that we can visualize it more explicitly. In response to the didactization carried out on the use of pronouns, we reproduced by sampling Figure 02 below.

Figure 2
– Reproduction of online comments about pronouns in inclusive language

Figure 02 illustrates an online conversation situation between two people, in which there are two speech shifts. The two aforementioned comments run through the orbit traced by Araújo (2017) since they demonstrate a divergent position taken among themselves, since the first (Comment 01, henceforth) supports the perspective defended in the video lesson, emphasizing the indispensability of inclusive language in the face of modernity; in turn, the second one (Comment 02, henceforth) seeks to refute it, trying to demonstrate uselessness by using a rule derived from the grammar of the standard norm, judging such rule as sufficient to cover the multiple uses of the language. In this sense, Comment 01 is in favor of inclusive language, considering empathy towards the non-binary person as an argument, “and who feels comfortable only with the neutral”. It is also pointed out that this practice is a respectful attitude, and should be replicated in other linguistic interactions, “the least that people need to do (...) is to use pronouns and words in neutral when talking to someone non-binary”. Finally, it is mentioned a situation in which people previously present in their social media profiles (Instagram and TikTok) the pronouns that should be used to refer to them: “there is a discussion for people to put the pronouns they use in the biography of insta, of tiktok” (cf. Figure 02). Regarding this comment, the appreciation of Figure 02 reveals that Comment 01 received a number of three approvals, including one from the video class producer/promoter channel, manifested by the red heart and channel profile image positioned below the comment, on the left.

The second one (Comment 02, henceforth) shows a contrary position in relation to the previous one, anchored in the claim that the masculine in PL is a neutral form and, therefore, inclusive language is unnecessary, “it is neutral when using the masculine” (cf. Figure 02). The basis that supports the position of who produced Commentary 02 is the normative and descriptive tendency of linguistic studies that do not account for the relationships that linguistic clues play in the interpretation and meaning of socially situated phenomena (Irvine; Gal, 2000). As a response to the video lesson and Comment 01, Comment 02 has so far received neither approval nor new replicas.

What the divergent positions reveal is not only a disagreement between positions, but the objectification of opposing, divergent linguistic ideologies, instantiating a confrontation of discursivity. The analyzed data signal at least two juxtaposed ideological perspectives on language produced within different social groups (Kroskrity, 2004).

On the one hand, Comment 01 and the video lesson converge on the non-exclusion of a specific linguistic variety defended, essentially, by the LGBTQIA+ community: “using pronouns and words in neutral” (cf. Figure 02) and “is it pertinent that I use neutral language in this context? Of course it is. Transcript 01, lines 15 and 16)”. These excerpts demonstrate that Commentary 01 and the video lesson operate as a non-totalizing vision, seeking not to hide the elements that do not fit the conventional interpretive structure (Irvine; Gal, 2000), but to unveil them, bringing them to discussion as valid linguistic objects because they are mainly based on the uses: “using pronouns” (cf. Figure 02) and “it is pertinent that I use it”. On the other hand, Comment 02 diverges by indexing a view based on sociolinguistic simplification, that is, on the erasure of diversity by defending the exclusive use of language in the standard norm, “it is neutral when using the masculine” (cf. Figure 02), a perspective whose root lies in an ideology that sees the standard norm as everything that is in the PL. In this way, Comment 02 performs a practical action to remove what supposedly threatens it (Irvine; Gal, 2000), which is the case of inclusive pronouns and flexional suffixes that, in this view, put into question the ideas of morally good and aesthetically pleasing given about the language construct, already signaled by Kroskrity (2004). Inspired by Irvine and Gal (2000), we understand that this comment is the result of ideological erasure, but that it does not mean real erasure, because although the existence of inclusive language is denied, it does not cease to exist and, even more, to resist.

In addition to the linguistic ideology of conservation, Comment 02 also indexes symbolic systems of domination related to social gender. By affirming that -o is a “neutral” codification (cf. Figure 02), in the sense of unmarked, the opposite form, would consequently be the flexional suffix -a, marked. Therefore, the statement of Comment 02 is not only metalinguistic, however, it results from another discursive struggle that, for Butler (1999), is the defense for binary prescription for body stylization. From this author, we understand that this comment is a repeated form that works within a gender regulatory framework. The linguistic ideology materialized in Comment 02 is convened and placed as an instrument used in the defense of identities oriented by heteronormativity. On the other hand, the video lesson and Comment 01 understand that inclusive language allows these bodies to mean themselves as they recognize themselves.

Linguistic ideology manifested by vocabulary choices

In addition to the use of non-binary pronouns, language uses can be inclusive by vocabulary and expression choices that have as their scope not a male form, but a generic collective without gender specification. Regarding this question, we present, through Transcription 02, the speaker’s speech given between 10min55s and 11min56s, seeking to answer the question Is neutral language really necessary?; subsequently, we reproduce, through Figure 03, the graphical interface of a comment (Comment 03, henceforth), whose thematic content is also equivalent, among other aspects, to vocabulary selection.

Figure 3
– Reproduction of online comment about “sentences” in inclusive language

Transcript 2 – Audio reproduction of video lesson on the use of expressions in inclusive language

• 01 e me parece que a linguagem neutra é uma tentativa de as pessoas não-

• 02 binárias se sentirem representadas se sentirem contempladas por meio das

• 03 palavras mas a língua portuguesa nós sabemos é muito rica e existem muitas

• 04 possibilidades de reformular as palavras para contemplar todas as pessoas por

• 05 exemplo em vez de falar alunos eu posso falar estudantes alunos é o

• 06 masculino né? estudantes pode servir pra masculino e feminino em vez de

• 07 falar professores eu posso falar corpo docente que eu contemplo todo mundo

• 08 e não preciso usar o masculino para contemplar homens e mulheres e pessoas

• 09 não-binárias é/ em vez de falar todos os presentes eu posso falar todas as

• 10 pessoas presentes então essas são técnicas para contemplar todas as pessoas

The linguistic clues, which constitute Transcription 02, are evidence that the video class operates with an ideology that projects the language as strongly linked to the social world, not only as an instrument of communication, because it is intertwined with discursive practice and the idea that the language also indexes identities, in this case, gender identities, “non-binary people feel represented feel contemplated” (cf. lines 01 and 02). For Woolard (1998), through these ideologies, particular linguistic forms are associated with certain values. Thus, while neutral language can be seen for its potential to offer visibility to socially vulnerable groups, therefore, a positive value, negative axiologies are also attributed to it since grammatical rules already naturalized in the language are broken.

Likewise, some preservation instincts become perceptible, which also signal the influence of another ideology, that of conservation, already identified previously. Now, if on the one hand there is a framework in the social sphere that characterizes inclusive language as a kind of “very strange” use (cf. line 08 of Transcription 01), the vocabulary choices allow more subtle displacements, so that there is not the same estrangement when the sociolinguistic order is broken, in other words, when the norm is transgressed. In this sense, when the exhibitor states that “we know the Portuguese language is very rich and there are many possibilities to reformulate the words to contemplate all people” (cf. lines 03 and 04), the understanding of PL that we face is not, otherwise, the one that conceives it as synonymous with standard norm, because inclusive language is still one among the myriad of languages labeled as PL.

When the video lesson highlights that “there are many possibilities to reformulate words” (cf. lines 03 and 04), because PL “is very rich” (cf. line 03), the didactic-digital material suggests the exchange of one word for another or a word for more complex nominal phrases. Thus, it seeks precisely to be responsive to the dispute between the two linguistic ideologies, that of conservation in favor of the standard norm and that of promoting the grammatical inclusion of non-binary people. In this conciliation wake, it becomes possible to be inclusive without stressing the dimension of morphology (of flexion or classes of words), more crystallized, when considering the dimension of vocabulary, more flexible. In other words, it would become possible to include without breaking regulatory criteria of the standard norm, thus, without disengaging from the belief in linguistic unity as a symbol of the national community (Woolard, 1998).

This is not to say, however, that “instead of saying alunos I can say estudantes” (cf. line 05), “I can say corpo docente that I contemplate everyone” (cf. line 07) and, furthermore, “instead of saying todos os presentes I can say todas as pessoas presentes” (cf. lines 09 and 10), can signal a supposed “neutrality”, since they meet, at the same time, the defenders of a linguistic uniformity and the demands of the groups that require visibility in language practices. The position that these exchanges show is part of a recognition that male forms are not enough to cover the female and non-binary social genders, as well as a recognition that there is in language as a whole power of representation.

In turn, Comment 03 is configured as a single turn, in which the person who comments explains his agreement with the need to think and apply an inclusive language in practice, “which I defend” and “use neutral language as a more inclusive language” (cf. Figure 03). Unlike the turns of commentators that have already been mentioned in this study, this one brings to the discussion the potential that this type of language has to also represent women, “this language is a feminist agenda [in France]” (cf. Figure 03), therefore, its use in real situations of interaction can prevent sexism in PL, “as well as avoiding sexism in the language” (cf. Figure 03). In the same perspective, Moita Lopes (2013, p. 23, our translation) explains that the word “man” was commonly used as a synonym for the human species through the performance of a linguistic ideology that conceals gender differences, sustained by the “fact that socio-historically man has been constructed as the most capable and the most powerful”³³.

We are interested in the observation that, either to meet the demand of the female cause and to grant visibility to non-binary people, the person who comments initially uses the same linguistic strategy that focuses on vocabulary choices, when he states, for example, that language becomes inclusive “using neutral phrases” (cf. Figure 03). In this case, those who promoted this interaction seek to respond to what was said in the video lesson, seeing, as phrases, nominal phrases. To cite a few examples, “corpo docente” (cf. line 07) as an alternative to “professores” (cf. line 07), “todas as pessoas presentes” (cf. lines 10 and 11) rather than “todos os presentes” (cf. line 09). When applying them in the social practices of the language, the generic male (Fischer, 2020) which refers to men (“professores” and “estudantes”) is not considered, but male and female collectives are used, such as “corpo docente” and “todas as pessoas” respectively, which refers to broad groups without specification of social genders.

However, Comment 03 also considers that the form “todes” (cf. Figure 02) is more efficient when the question is collective inclusion by stating that this “would be, in a single word, [able to] include all people in a single word” (cf. Figure 02). By asserting its point of view as the conclusion of the speech shift, Comment 03 reveals a more radical position if we compare the one brought in Transcript 02 of the video lesson. Thus, this indefinite and inclusive quantifier is indicated as a viable replacement, since it semantically achieves gender diversity, even though it is an unfolded form of a new pronominal paradigm, therefore, outside of the norm. Regarding this topic, it seems to us that Comment 03 is aligned with the perspective of the Portuguese Language Museum, criticized by the most conservative social segment (cf. Introduction).

In this sense, data analysis made it possible to understand that video lessons and comments are discursively filled by more than one linguistic ideology, which take part in the sociolinguistic system. This reveals, therefore, that the views on the intersection between language and society are inserted in a complex relationship, because, as they intertwine and interconnect, they also come into conflict. In a pendulum movement, which sometimes focuses on one ideology or another, the analysis of the video lesson allowed us to identify that the theoretical approach is a product of a discursive struggle, of clashes that are motivated not only by linguistic issues, but by issues involving gender identities. Formulating replicas to the material in this didactic-digital context, commentators strive to defend their perspectives, to present their impressions on the subject, whether amplifications and limitations, or arguments to legitimize or delegitimize the variety that is inclusive language.

Final considerations

The categories of analysis, concerning the linguistic ideologies related to the use of pronouns and vocabulary choices, enabled us to collect some aspects of the theoretical approach instantiated in the video lesson focused on inclusive language as an object of linguistic knowledge. One of the aspects is the defense for not replacing the standard norm with another variety of language; the other one, resulting from this, corresponds to the elucidation that inclusive language is a variety that can be used in situations in which it is acceptable. These considerations are possible by anchoring in an understanding of language as a representation potential, thus not only functioning as a communication instrument, but being connected to social issues.

The analyzed video class promotes an approach to the phenomenon without resorting to negative judgments to the uses of inclusive language. In the theoretical treatment granted, mostly linguistic ideologies are related to situational variation, to representativeness in language and to the dynamics of language. On the other hand, the position of the exhibitor regarding the notion of estrangement also reveals, albeit subtly, the fulfillment of conservative linguistic ideologies linked to aesthetic issues. From this, we perceive that the tensions arising from the current sociolinguistic scene, an arena in which opposing ideologies, different and litigious understandings of the language are confronted, also influence the complex task of transforming objects of linguistic reality into objects of teaching of PL.

As for the online comments focused on these categories, we noticed that they enable asynchronous interaction, similar to oral interaction in the classroom, which manifest positions from the sociocultural experience of those who comment. Thus, they function as a fruitful field to analyze the objectification of linguistic ideologies through the manifestation of the perceptions they have in relation to language. This puts us in front of data that, unfiltered, exposes what people believe and judge as true, good, pleasant. These are perceptions rooted and naturalized in the common sense mentality, since the formulation of the ideals of colonialism.

Thus, it became noticeable that these ideologies also mix with the struggle of socially vulnerable groups to achieve visibility from a linguistic point of view, since to say is to mean. Conscious or unaware of this aspect, there are also those who believe in the fallacy that ignoring or neglecting the existence of a variety in use is removing it, even more, is closing the closet doors to deny the social reality of language.

REFERÊNCIAS

• ALÉONG, S. Normas linguísticas, normas sociais: uma perspectiva antropológica. In: BAGNO, M. (org.). Norma linguística. Tradução de Marcos Bagno. São Paulo: Edições Loyola, 2012. p. 141–170.
• AMARAL, A.; NATAL, G.; VIANA, L. Netnografia como aporte metodológico da pesquisa em comunicação digital. Famecos/PUCRS, Porto Alegre, n. 35, p. 34–40, 2008. Disponível em: http://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/famecos/article/view/4829/3687 Acesso em: 27 nov. 2021.
  » http://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/famecos/article/view/4829/3687
• ARAÚJO, P. S. R. Análise dialógica de réplicas no gênero comentário on-line: A compreensão responsiva ativa sobre o segundo casamento cristão-católico. 2017. 161f. Tese (Doutorado em Linguística) – Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa, 2017.
• BARBOSA, FILHO, F. R. Projetos de lei contrários à “linguagem neutra” no Brasil. In: BARBOSA FILHO, F. R.; OTHÉRO, G (org.). A. Linguagem “neutra”: língua e gênero em debate. São Paulo: Parábola, 2022. p. 143–160.
• BARBOSA FILHO, F. R.; OTHÉRO, G (org.). A. Linguagem “neutra”: língua e gênero em debate. São Paulo: Parábola, 2022.
• BERTUCCI, P.; ZANELLA, A. Manifesto ile para uma comunicação radicalmente inclusiva. Disponível em: https://diversitybbox.com/manifesto-ile-para-uma-comunicacao-radicalmente-inclusiva/ Acesso em: 31 mar. 2023.
  » https://diversitybbox.com/manifesto-ile-para-uma-comunicacao-radicalmente-inclusiva/
• BRASIL. Ministério da Educação. Base Nacional Comum Curricular. Brasília, 2018.
• BUTLER, J. Problemas do gênero: feminismo e subversão de identidade Tradução de Renato Aguiar. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2003.
• CÂMARA JR., J. M. A estrutura da Língua Portuguesa. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1970.
• CASTILHO, A. T. Gramática do Português Brasileiro. São Paulo: Contexto, 2019.
• CASTILHO, A. T.; ELIAS, V. M. Pequena gramática do Português Brasileiro São Paulo: Contexto, 2015.
• DEL VALLE, J.; MEIRINHO-GUEDE, V. Ideologías linguísticas. In: GUTIÉRREZ-REXACH, J. Enciclopedia de Lingüística Hispánica. New York: City University of New York, 2016. v.2. Disponível em: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1273&context=gc_pubs Acesso em 12 out. 2021.
  » https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1273&context=gc_pubs
• DIONÍSIO, A. P. Análise da conversação. In: MUSSALIM, F.; BENTES, A. C. (org.). Introdução à Linguística: domínios e fronteiras. São Paulo: Cortez, 2012. v. 2. p. 81–112.
• FISCHER, A. Manual prático de linguagem inclusiva São Paulo: Tecidas, 2020. Disponível em: https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/87bdaac3/files/uploaded/mpli1_2.pdf Acesso em: 01 mar. 2022.
  » https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/87bdaac3/files/uploaded/mpli1_2.pdf
• GONZALEZ, C.; MOITA LOPES, L. P. Reflexividade metapragmática sobre o cinema de Almodóvar numa interação online: indexicalidade, escalas e entextualização. Trabalhos em linguística aplicada, Campinas, v. 57, p. 1102–1136, 2018. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/tla/a/rnbtMZYy5tJmMPpb69FBrBq/?format=html⟨=pt Acesso em 12 dez. 2021.
  » https://www.scielo.br/j/tla/a/rnbtMZYy5tJmMPpb69FBrBq/?format=html⟨=pt
• ILIOVITZ, E. R.; MIRANDA NETO, C. B. Há lógica na linguagem inclusiva? Interfaces de Saberes, Caruaru, v. 7, n. 2, 2007. Disponível em: http://arquivos.info.ufrn.br/arquivos/2015118156ada426722426f3a6419654c/artigo_sobre_linguagem_inclusiva.pdf Acesso em: 18 mar. 2022.
  » http://arquivos.info.ufrn.br/arquivos/2015118156ada426722426f3a6419654c/artigo_sobre_linguagem_inclusiva.pdf
• IRVINE, J. T.; GAL, S. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In: KROSKRITY, P. V. (org.). Regimes of language: ideologies, polities, and identities. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 2000. p. 35–84.
• JESUS, J. G. Orientações sobre identidade de gênero: conceitos e termos. Guia técnico sobre pessoas transexuais, travestis e demais transgêneros, para formadores de opinião. Brasília, 2012. v. 2. Disponível em: https://files.cercomp.ufg.br/weby/up/16/o/ORIENTA%C3%87%C3%95ES_POPULA%C3%87%C3%83O_TRANS.pdf Acesso em: 01 abr. 2022.
  » https://files.cercomp.ufg.br/weby/up/16/o/ORIENTA%C3%87%C3%95ES_POPULA%C3%87%C3%83O_TRANS.pdf
• KROSKRITY, P. Language ideologies. In: DURANTI, A. (org.) A companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. p. 496–517.
• LAURENTINO, J. V. B. Práticas de ensino de Língua Portuguesa: evidências de ideologias linguísticas em videoaulas e comentários on-line. 2022. Dissertação (Mestrado em Linguagem e Ensino) — Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Campina Grande, 2022. Disponível em: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GYYBg765kvTXMBeHnpUJ2reVvxPqOHFF/view Acesso em: 01 set. 2022.
  » https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GYYBg765kvTXMBeHnpUJ2reVvxPqOHFF/view
• LE GOFF, J. Documento-monumento. In: ENCICLOPÉDIA Einaudi. Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional/Casa da Moeda, 1997. v.1: memória-história. p. 95–106.
• MOITA LOPES, L. P. Ideologia linguística: como construir discursivamente o português do século XXI. In: MOITA LOPES, L. P. (org.). O português no século XXI: cenário geopolítico e sociolinguístico. São Paulo: Parábola, 2013. p. 18–52.
• MOITA LOPES, L. P. Uma lingüística aplicada mestiça e ideológica: interrogando o campo como lingüista aplicado. In: MOITA LOPES, L. P. (org.). Por uma linguística aplicada indisciplinar. São Paulo: Parábola, 2006. p. 13–44.
• PAIVA, V. L. M. O. Manual de pesquisa em estudos linguísticos. São Paulo: Parábola, 2019.
• PINTO, J. P. Linguagem, feminismo e efeitos de corpo. In: SILVA, D. N.; FERREIRA, D. M. M.; ALENCAR, C. N. (org.). Nova pragmática: modos de fazer. São Paulo: Cortez, 2014. p. 207–230.
• POVINELLI, E. A. Pragmáticas íntimas: linguagem, subjetividade e gênero. Tradução de Joana Plaza Pinto. Revista Estudos, Florianópolis, v.24, n.1, p.205–237, 2016. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0104-026X2016000100205&script=sci_abstract&tlng=pt . Acesso em: 08 dez. 2020.
  » https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0104-026X2016000100205&script=sci_abstract&tlng=pt
• SILVERSTEIN, M. Los usos y la utilidad de la ideología. In: SCHIEFFELIN, B. B.; WOOLARD, K.; KROSKRITY, P. V. Ideologías linguísticas: práctica y teoria. Madrid: Catarata, 2012. p. 164–192.
• WOOLARD, K. Las ideologías lingüísticas como campo de investigación. In: SCHIEFFELIN, B. B.; WOOLARD, K.; KROSKRITY, P. V. Ideologías linguísticas: práctica y teoria. Madrid: Catarata, 2012. p. 19–69.

• 1
  This article is linked to a broader research, underway in the PhD course in Language and Teaching, in the Graduate Program in Language and Teaching. This study is carried out under the responsibility of the authors, who focus on the relationship between digital educational technologies and the teaching of Portuguese Language (LP), precisely, of L/SA axis contents.
• 2
  The Museum of the Portuguese Language made its publication through the social network Twitter, which can be accessed at: https://twitter.com/museudalingua/status/1414704318800875520?s=46&t=LJJuu8sFW-mceoMYe2stLg.
• 3
  These translated tweets can be fully found at: https://twitter.com/mfriasoficial/status/1418704494460801025?s=46&t=LJJuu8sFW-mceoMYe2stLg.
• 4
  Original: O governo federal investiu R$ 56 milhões nas obras do Museu da Língua Portuguesa, para preservarmos o nosso patrimônio cultural, que depende da preservação da nossa língua. Não aceitarei que esse investimento sirva para que agentes públicos brinquem de revolução.
  Tomarei medidas para impedir que usem o dinheiro público federal para suas piruetas ideológicas. Se o governo paulista se comporta como militante, vandalizando nossa cultura, não o fará com verba federal.
• 5
  Original: “se impõe e é imposta como a língua de referência pela qual se deve medir todos os comportamentos. É a língua correta [...] que por definição, classifica todas as outras formas possíveis como erros e incorreções” (Aléong, 2012, p, p. 148).
• 6
  For Jesus (2012), it is the group of people who do not fit into any gender expression.
• 7
  Pinto (2014) refers to the concept of power from Judith Butler, which, in turn, finds inspiration in Michel Foucault. Thus, for Butler (1999), power “encompasses both the juridical (prohibitive and regulatory) and the productive (inadvertently generative) functions of differential relations” (Butler, 1999, p. 39).
• 8
  This is the case of the work Linguagem “neutra”: língua e gênero em debate by Barbosa Filho and Othéro (2022), which brings together a collection of chapters that discuss inclusive language for the representation of women and non-binary groups in language.
• 9
  From Barbosa Filho (2022), we can mention the following projects circulating in the Brazilian National Congress: Bill No. 5248/2020; Bill No. 5198/2020; Bill No. 721/2020 and Bill No. 211/2021.
• 10
  Original: “[a natureza do gênero] costuma ser associada intimamente ao sexo dos seres” (Câmara Jr., 1970, p. 88).
• 11
  Original: “essa nova palavra, esse novo pronome de gênero ‘ile’, é uma tentativa de questionar a ‘norma’, a cis-heteronormatividade, aquele conceito que diz que ‘o certo é homem, macho e masculino e mulher, fêmea e feminina’” (Bertucci; Zanella, 2023).
• 12
  In this assertion, we anchor ourselves in Castilho and Elias (2015), so we refer to informal Brazilian Portuguese and not to the standard norm.
• 13
  Original: “em português, e sobretudo em países de língua espanhola, algumas pessoas têm usado ‘e’ como forma de atenuar ‘o’ masculino e ‘a’ feminino” (Fischer, 2020, p, p. 07).
• 14
  As for criticism, Fischer (2020, p, p. 7) argues that these flexional suffixes are not inclusive, but exclusionary, because they “create reading problems for visually impaired people who use text-reading programs, for people with dyslexia”.
• 15
  Original: Escolha substantivos que se referem às instituições e não às pessoas que fazem parte delas (...). Os senadores estão votando a pauta → O Senado está votando a pauta. Os diretores vão escolher o nome → A diretoria vai escolher o nome. Os pernambucanos adoram o frevo → A população de Pernambuco adora o frevo. (Fischer, 2020, p, p. 11).
• 16
  Original: “a substituição da palavra ‘homem’ por ‘pessoas’ significa simplesmente que, ao invés de usar uma palavra do gênero masculino, será usada uma do gênero feminino” (Iliovitz; Miranda Neto, 2007, p. 9).
• 17
  Original: “passamos de um extremo a outro” (Iliovitz; Miranda Neto, 2007, p. 9).
• 18
  Original: “‘dívida histórica’ do sexo masculino em relação ao feminino, por tê-lo subestimado” (Iliovitz; Miranda Neto, 2007, p. 9)
• 19
  Original: “pessoas são pessoas, independente do gênero” (Fischer, 2020, p, p. 10).
• 20
  This research is entitled Practices of teaching Portuguese Language: evidences of linguistic ideologies in video lessons and online comments (free translation) by Laurentino (2022), who highlighted video lessons of the three mentioned channels.
• 21
  The channel is available at this link: https://www.youtube.com/c/ProfessorNoslen. Access on: 13 Dec. 2023.
• 22
  The channel is available at this link: https://www.youtube.com/c/redacaoegramatica. Access on: 13 Dec. 2023.
• 23
  The channel is available at this link: https://www.youtube.com/c/PortuguêscomLetícia. Access on: 13 Dec. 2023.
• 24
  In our perspective, the denomination “neutral language” does not correspond to the most appropriate terminology to treat the phenomenon, because it presupposes a neutrality not achievable when we have language as a scope. Thus, in this article, to refer to this linguistic variety, we adopt “inclusive language”. However, in some excerpts of the audio transcripts presented in the data analysis, we reproduce the use of “neutral language” to stay true to the data.
• 25
  NEUTRAL LANGUAGE — What is it? How does it work? Is it polemic? My opinion as a Portuguese teacher! (author’s translation)
• 26
  Given that the numbers of views, comments and ratings are fluctuating, it becomes necessary to situate them temporally as of May 2023.
• 27
  We hid the image of the exhibitor’s face in the video lesson, the names of participating commentators and their profile photos, using the Picsart app.
• 28
  The guidelines, which indicate which speeches can circulate on the YouTube social network, can be accessed through the following link: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9288567?hl=en. Access on: 13 Dec. 2023.
• 29
  In order to maintain the data integrity, the transcriptions will be preserved in its original language (Portuguese) and translated as long as it is commented in the analysis, whenever possible.
• 30
  Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvcAjxcqPV0. Access on: 13 Dec. 2023
• 31
  Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvcAjxcqPV0. Access on: 13 Dec. 2023
• 32
  Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvcAjxcqPV0. Access on: 13 Dec. 2023
• 33
  Original: “fato de que sócio-historicamente o homem ter sido construído como o mais capaz e o mais poderoso”. (Moita Lopes, 2013, p, p. 23).

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  11 Mar 2024
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  03 Oct 2022
• Accepted
  24 May 2023