O tratamento da norma em livros didáticos do ensino médio.

Abstract

Historically, always sought to determine a representation language and uses that could be taken as a standard. Currently, the standard is conceptualized on two points of view: the prescriptive norm and the norm normal character, result in normal and normative adjectives, where the first, it is seen as a social cohesion factor and the last as a way to have access to prestigious social class, corresponding to their habits and aspirations. Thus, the present study is meant to examine how the textbooks of high school understand the concept of linguistic norm and specifically how to verify the conception standard is present out in these collections, the bias of language concepts advocated by the authors; observe the concept standard is treated in the questions proposed by the authors over the collections; and see how the design presented in the proposals issues influence on language teaching, specifically on the issue of the standard.Theoretically, the research is based on Antunes (2002, 2007, 2014), Bagno (2001; 2003; 2004; 2012), Soares (2002), Travaglia (2004, 2006), OCEM (2006), Bezerra and Reinaldo (2013) , Mendonça (2006), Lucchesi (2002), Faraco (2008), Britto (2003), Rodrigues (2002) and Carneiro (2012). The text is classified methodologically as a descriptive research with collecting documentary evidence and qualitative and based two collections of textbooks of high school: Português: contexto, interlocução e sentido, of Abaurre, Abaurre and Pontara (2013) and Novas palavras, de Amaral et. al. (2013). The analysis came from three categories: language of the concepts / standards, the methodological treatment of the question of the standard and the relationship between the concepts defended by the authors to language and standard and the proposed activities for the work of the norm throughout the collections. The first category came from the Teacher's Guide, while the second and third left of these activities in the units of each volume.The results showed that the first collection presented inaccurate conceptions, but with the mix of language concepts and adopted standard, while the collection 2, more explicit conceptions defends the conception of language as interaction and standard as normal. As refer to the activities, the results showed a mixture between the two perspectives, with reflective character and prescription activities. Generally speaking, the collections advance, at least in the specific chapters the subject of the standard, to appreciate a concern in the diversity of uses depending on the communication needs in general, however, this advance is little or not present in volumes with grammatical topics more specific, revealing a job with the standard still under construction.