Terminologia LGBTQIAP+ em linguagens de indexação: uma análise discursiva crítica dos registros de autoridade de assunto da UFMG

Abstract

The LGBTQIAP+ (an acronym for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transvestite, Transexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual, pansexual and other sexual and gender identities) theme is configured as an object of research in major areas of knowledge and researchers have reported the growth of scientific and academic productions with this approach. Considering the growth of these publications and based on the understanding that there is a contemporary terminology to be observed, the following questions arise: does the indexing language used by the UFMG Library System reflect the terminological, social, and rights advances of the LGBTQIAP+ population? Are there any possible contributions to the expansion of this vocabulary? If yes, which ones? Based on these questions, the general objective was defined as follows: to discursively and critically analyze the representativeness of the LGBTQIAP+ terminology that is structured in the indexing instrument used by the UFMG Library System. And as specific objectives: to identify the Subject Authority Records used to index this themes; to repertorize contemporary LGBTQIAP+ terminology; and to discursively analyze critically and contrastively the selected corpora. From a theoretical point of view, the research is based on a critical perspective of the thematic representation of information. From a methodological point of view, it adopts Norman Fairclough's (2016) Critical Discourse Analysis model. The methodology includes documentary research in the UFMG Subject Authority Catalog; a survey of contemporary terminology; and critical and constrative discourse analysis of the data. To operationalize the analysis, Fairclough's (2016) three-dimensional model was used, which conceives discourse analysis in three dimensions: textual analysis, discourse practice analysis, and social practice analysis. The results showed that the LGBTQIAP+ theme is underrepresented in the institution's Subject Authority Catalog, moreover, this instrument favors hegemonic discourses of subalternity of LGBTQIAP+ people by continuing to use terms coming from the medical-psychiatric discouse that in the past classified LGBTQIAP+ people as disease, deviation, abnormality, disorder and perversion. However, although the Catalog materializes ideas and worldviews that may imply in biased and inappropriate representations, one cannot deny the flexible character of this instrument by incorporating new terms from the agentive and contemporary discourse, which signals that the discursive practice of this tool is open to transformations, being a space of power and struggle.