A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SCIENTIFIC-POLITICAL-BUSINESS DISCOURSE IN BRAZIL AND RUSSIA

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyse a relatively recent type of discourse: the scientific-political-business discourse, and to show examples of it in two countries, Brazil and Russia. The paper approaches the dialogue of contemporary scientific discourse along with other spheres of human activity – those of politics and business – by analysing topics discussed in two forums of economic development (in São Paulo and St. Petersburg). The research is based on Bakhtin’s ideas about dialogue and on the discursive and comparative analysis carried out by CLESTHIA axe sens et discours, a research group from the University of Sorbonne Nouvelle, in Paris. One of the concepts developed by this group is the tertium comparationis (or element of comparison), which is used in this work. The results point to the appropriation, for business discourse, of the authority conferred to science to legitimize business practices, and also to the ideological similarity – a result of globalized productive relations established in both countries.

Discourse analysis; Scientific-political-business discourse; Traditional scientific discourse; Discourse comparison

RESUMO

O objetivo desse artigo é descrever e analisar um tipo de discurso relativamente jovem: o discurso científico-político-empresarial, assim como mostrar exemplos dele em dois países, Brasil e Rússia. O artigo aborda o fenômeno do diálogo do discurso científico, na sociedade contemporânea, com outras esferas da atividade humana – a da política e a dos negócios, analisando assuntos pautados em dois fóruns de desenvolvimento econômico (em São Paulo e São Petersburgo). A pesquisa apoia-se nas ideias bakhtinianas sobre o diálogo e na análise discursiva e comparativa realizada pelo grupo CLESTHIA axe sens et discours da Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, em Paris. Um dos conceitos desenvolvidos por este grupo é o tertium comparationis (ou elemento de comparação), que é usado na análise deste trabalho. Os resultados apontam para a apropriação, por parte do discurso dos negócios, da autoridade conferida à ciência para validar práticas empresariais e, também, para a semelhança ideológica, fruto das relações produtivas globalizadas, que se estabeleceram nos dois países.

Análise do discurso; Discurso científico-político-empresarial; Discurso científico tradicional; Comparação de discursos

Introduction: presentation of the issue and its theoretical framework

The issue of discourse, language and culture comparison is present to a lesser or greater extent in the studies of different universities and researches centres throughout the world. Moreover, it’s becoming popular very likely under the influence of globalization, which increases the exchange between many countries in the fields of science, politics and business. In this paper, we shall discuss some French, Brazilian and Russian researches related to this topic.

In the age of economical globalization, it’s important to understand how the other cultures work. A way to achieve this understanding is to compare the discourse of different ethnolinguistic communities and to examine the operation, for example, of economic concepts such as “diversity”, “inclusion” and “cooperation” in a plurality of cultural universes. The theme of the event that we shall analyse is economy, which is considered a human science.

The main purpose of this paper, and of our studies in general, is to create a theoretical-methodological perspective of Bakhtinian inspiration for the comparison of discourses in different languages and cultures. In this work, we shall consider the Brazilian ¹ and Russian theoretical framework (Bakhtin’s theories developed in some researches in Brazil and in Russia) and the French (research group CLESTHIA ² axe sens et discours – Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris 3). Following this research path, we seek to perform a comparative analysis of two events in the Brazilian and Russian ethnolinguistic communities.

The realization of this task is organized as follows: will be presented the Bakhtin’s theory for a comparative analysis of discourse and, afterwards will be exposed the principles of the comparative discourse analysis formulated by the researchers of CLESTHIA . As a main notion of comparison, is used the concept of tertium comparationis developed by CLESTHIA axe sens et discours . Finally, will be performed a comparative analysis of the “scientifically valid moments” ³ of the scientific-political-business discourse, in Portuguese and Russian, to reveal the validity and the productivity of the proposed theoretical framework. These moments or “scientifically valid” qualities are not the same as the concept of tertium comparationis , yet they work as comparison parameters for this research.

The presented hypothesis is that the scientific discourse in modern reality is creating new forms of dialogical relations with other spheres of human activity. In this regards, will be observed the dialogue between three of these spheres: science, business and politics. The corpus analysed in this paper was chosen to demonstrate the dialogue and the mutual influence of these spheres in Brazil and Russia, even though the discourses of both countries do not have a strong and direct impact on one another. Taking into consideration Bakhtin’s and the Circle’s ideas, we shall consider the dialogical nature of scientific communication. The scientific thought is reflected in a wide range of genres ⁴: this allows us to compare situations wherein the scientific discourse genres do not appear so pure or demarcated.

In a text of the 1920s, “For a philosophy of act”, Bakhtin mentions an interesting point for the present research: the author shows how the socially valid/significative ⁵ does rule certain categories like aesthetics, science and ethics. Bakhtin speaks about the category of “ought to be”, which he tries to define in dialogue with Rickert and Husserl.

According to Bakhtin (1993 , p.22-23), the “ought to be” is the category “capable of grounding [...] the historical concreteness of an individual fact” and “arises only in the correlating of truth with our actual act of cognition […]”. The author continues:

[…] there is no aesthetic ought, scientific ought and – beside them – an ethical ought; there is only that which is aesthetically, theoretically, socially valid , and these validities may be joined by the ought […]. These postings gain their validity within an aesthetic, a scientific, or a sociological unity: the ought gains its validity within the unity of my once-occurrent answerable life ⁶ ( BAKHTIN, 1993 , p.22-23).

Regarding the mutual influence between the spheres of human life, it looks like that one can consider not the direct influence of these spheres on each other, but the influence of their significative and valid qualities, of their scientifically or socially valid qualities. Since we are inaugurating this domain of research, the already existing theories and methodologies need to be adapted. For this study, the above-mentioned Bakhtinian theory will be adapted, considering that the valid/significative characteristics mentioned by Bakhtin are equivalent in the scientific-political-business discourse, to the communication topic and to the speakers’ status. In this paper, will be examined the mode of presentation of the topic in two similar genres of two different countries, and the study will be related to the two axes of Bakhtin’s theory: to the ideas of social horizon and social evaluations, and also to the ideas of social psychology and everyday ideology. The former will help me to analyse the material from an ideological perspective, whereas the latter will be useful to analyse the recorded and transcribed speech, which is different from the written text – created and revised, for example, by the author.

As stated in Marxism and the Philosophy of Language: fundamental problems of the sociological method in language science (1929):

Social psychology is first and foremost an atmosphere made up of multifarious speech performances that engulf and wash over all persistent forms and kinds of ideological creativity: unofficial discussions, exchanges of opinion at the theater or a concert or at various types of social gatherings, purely chance exchanges of words, one’s manner of verbal reaction to happenings in one’s life and daily existence, one’s inner-word manner of identifying oneself and identifying one’s position in society , and so on. Social psychology exists primarily in a wide variety of forms of the “utterance” of little speech genres of internal and external kinds – things left completely unstudied to the present day. All these speech performances are of course, joined with other types of semiotic manifestation and interchange – with miming, gesturing, acting out, and the like. All these forms of speech interchange operate in extremely close connection with the conditions of the social situation in which they occur and exhibit an extraordinary sensitivity to all fluctuations in the social atmosphere. ( VOLÓCHINOV, 2017 , p.107-108, emphasis added).

The proximity of the evaluative emphasis (positive or negative evaluations of certain concepts, such as “inclusion”, “internationalism”, etc.) in similar genres (for instance, the genre ‘economic forum session’), in the modern reality of two that different countries, indicates the possibility to speak about an ideological similarity within a specific theme, which will be demonstrated during the analysis.

The idea of social psychology will help me to analyse speech and the chosen parameters –the way of introducing the subject of the session (topic) and the mode of self-presentation (the speakers’ status ) – within the Circle’s theory. According to Volóchinov (2017 , p.107), social psychology reflects and shapes itself in a “universe of multiform verbal discourses”, and also in the “internal verbal manner to be aware of oneself and of one’s social position”. The latter point refers in our opinion, to the speakers’ status and their mode of self-presentation. Social psychology, in accordance with Pliekhánov and the majority of Marxists’ theorists, on which Volóchinov (2017 , p.106-107) bases himself, is a

transitory link between the socio-political regime and ideology in the strict sense of the word (science, art, etc.), materializes itself in reality as a verbal interaction . […] The productive relations and the socio-political regime conditioned by them determine all the possible verbal contacts between the people, all the forms and means of verbal communication between these ones: at work, in political life, in ideological creation. As for the conditions, the forms and types of discursive communication, they determine the forms as much as the topics of verbal discourses.

Further on, Volóchinov (2017 , p.106-107) states:

“It is necessary to study social psychology from two angles: firstly, from the point of view of its content , that is, through the prism of the topics which are relevant to it sometimes; and in second place, from the point of view of the forms and types of discursive communication wherein these topics are fulfilled” ⁷ .

In this research, is revealed a type of discourse, that represents a new form of communication, in which circulate relevant topics to the social horizon of modern age. This new form of communication seems to signalize the recent socioeconomic changes, in which the new modes of globalized production seek to justify their business practices by the outward appearance of scientific topics and the authority of science, as will be shown further on.

The traditional scientific discourse and its relations with other spheres of human activity

In order to expose the phenomenon of intersection between the spheres, we need to elect the central discourse among them, since the focus of this research is the scientific discourse. Thus, to explain the nature of scientific-political-business discourse, we’ll firstly explain how the traditional scientific discourse is understood, and then describe the studied discourse. The relations of the scientific discourse with other spheres of human activity are illustrated in the image below:

Image 1
– The relations of the scientific discourse with other spheres of human activity.

The influence between the six spheres (scientific, educational, political, corporative or business, journalistic and everyday discourses) is mutual, since they constitute themselves through the dialogue with each other, understood in the Bakhtinian sense as an “axiological-semantic relation” ( GRILLO, 2013 ). In this paper, are observed the interrelations between scientific, political and corporative discourses, which has been called the scientific-political-business discourse.

To analyse these inter-relations, were collected audio and video recordings of the traditional scientific discourse and of the scientific-political-business discourse in oral texts (spontaneous speeches) from 2010 to 2016. At first, the criteria for choosing the analysis material of the traditional scientific discourse (which is represented in the centre of Image 1 ) will be shown, since the logic of those criteria influenced on the formation of the corpus of the present research.

Speeches and debates in traditional scientific discourse were selected according to the following criteria:

1. The speech topic was necessarily scientific. Depending on the situation, speakers changed the topic, but in most examples they went back to the scientific topic. All speeches in this study that were influenced by the scientific sphere have respected this criterion.

2. Location: the place where the communication happened. In the case of the scientific discourse, it occurred in the official institutions, universities and research centres. The scientific discourse was planned according to the rules of those institutions. The communication was addressed to professional audiences of the respective areas and represented the institutional discourse (when the communicator speaks as a representative of a given social institution). This communicative space as we shall see, is socially oriented.

3. Status of the speaker – which is a criterion of great importance in the scientific discourse: the speakers obligatory must have academic qualifications. In the material analysed, most of the records are from professors and Doctors, but some are discussions performed by doctoral students, considered as representatives of the academic world, because with their experience in undergraduate course and master’s degree, they show an interest in developing a professional field (academical), in obtaining a professional qualification in the chosen domain, and in having therefore, a right to “speak” within science.

4. The presence of an audience. The scientific discourse does not occur necessarily with the presence of an audience, for the speakers may discuss scientific topics without the listeners, although their participation influence in the formation of the discourse, in the lexical and syntactical selection, as well as in the speech formation ⁸ . Most of the material used in this study represents situations where an audience is present, consisting of official speeches or debates.

Some of these parameters (the speakers’ status and the topic’s mode of presentation) were chosen as an element of comparison between the utterances of different cultures.

We can summarize the characteristics of the immediate communication situation ( VOLÓCHINOV, 2017 ) of the traditional scientific discourse in the following tableau:

Tableau 1 – The characteristics of the traditional scientific discourse.

	Topic	Location	Speakers’ status	Presence of the audience
Traditional scientific discourse	Scientific	Universities and research centres	Academic qualifications	Yes

Source: Author's elaboration.

The traditional scientific discourse is formed, created and produced by and for scientists, it serves the scientific sphere and is intended to “the transference of scientific information to a prepared audience interested in the subject” ( ROSENTAL, 1991 , p.149, translation mine ⁹ ). Scientific speech uses terminologies of its respective domains of research, the speakers cite books and authors known by the target audience. This type of discourse promotes the acquisition and the preservation of scientific knowledge. According to the majority of Russian researchers, for instance Kójina (2008) and Kotiúrova (2011) , the traditional Russian scientific discourse has the following characteristics: logic, abstraction, generalization and coherence. The criteria of objectivity, tonality ¹⁰ and dialogism ¹¹ are also observed. However, criticizing this idealized vision of the scientific discourse, the Brazilian researcher Maria José Coracini (1991 , p.192) discusses the dichotomies “objective/subjective” and “literal/metaphorical”, considering them relative and arbitrary: “what is subjective for one social group, may be objective for another, and vice-versa; in the same way that what is metaphorical for ones may be literal for others, what is true for some may not be true for others”. In this work, it is considered that the traditional scientific discourse does not necessarily have all the abovementioned characteristics, but it has the tendency to be objective, logical, abstract, etc. – or better to say – has the tendency to look objective, logical, abstract, etc., using these criteria as strategies of persuasion.

Scientific-political-business discourse

The scientific-political-business discourse is relatively young and well spread throughout the modern world. It is a sort of synthesis of the scientific, business and political discourses and it is present in different forums, congresses, round tables and in other meetings where the participants are not only representatives of the academic world, but also businessmen, politicians and other public people from state and government structures. The example of it can be the formal discussion about a scientific topic, that occurs in the presence of the audience (it may be through the media), yet out of the scientific institutions.

One can find examples of the scientific-political-business discourse in many countries around the world. The economic forums are a form of communication that is becoming popular, such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), in Davos (Switzerland), or the meetings from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the Africa – South America Summit (ASA). There are other examples in Brazil, such as the Italy-Brazil Business Meeting , held in São Paulo on May 12, 2011, and the Brazilian-Portuguese-Italian International Seminar , held in the same city from the 28^thuntil the 30^thAugust 2014.

A comparison of the immediate communication situation in the scientific-political-business discourse with the traditional scientific discourse is exposed in the following tableau:

Tableau 2 – The comparison of the scientific-political-business discourse with the traditional scientific discourse.

	Topic	Location	Speaker’s status	Presence of the audience
Traditional scientific discourse	Scientific	Universities and research centres	Academic qualifications	Yes, scientists
Scientific-political-business discourse	It resembles the scientific one	Universities, research centres or any typical place for big events and official meetings; the space being sometimes specifically designed for the forum.	The academic qualifications are optional	Yes, the audience is varied and includes scientists and representatives of the political and business world. The radio and television broadcasts attract a wide range of listeners.

Source: Author's elaboration.

The speech topics in these forums are mostly scientific – or we could say that the tendency is to formulate the topic to make it look scientific – and the speeches are official and formal in the presence of a specific audience: most listeners are specialists in the topic’s field or are interested in the subject. A characteristic of the scientific-political-business discourse, that is observed during these events, is the change of space, i.e. most of them occur out of the scientific institutions. For instance, the event Diverse São Paulo ( São Paulo Diverso ), about which we shall speak further on, occurred in the Elis Regina Amphitheatre, in São Paulo, and the Russian Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Forum (SME Forum) in the Expocenter (in St. Petersburg), which was specially built for the event.

Besides that, there are people out of the academic world who participate in the scientific-political-business discourse, those who represent companies, business world or even state and governmental institutions. The status of the participants/debaters shows that this type of discourse is constituted by the inter-relation of the scientific, political and business discourse: some topics discussed during these meetings were an analogue to the scientific ones, even though the speakers were not all academic.

In order to compare the discourses which occurred during the economic forums in São Paulo and St. Petersburg, considering two ethnolinguistic communities and cultures that distinct, the concept of tertium comparationis , explained below, is applied.

Tertium comparationis and comparative analysis

The tertium comparationis is a Latin expression that means “the third part of comparison”, i.e. the common quality shared by the objects of comparison: these do not need to be identical, although they should possess at least one quality in common (traditionally referred to as tertium comparationis ). These qualities are equivalent to the “valid moments” of Bakhtin’s theory, exposed in the beginning of this paper. The concept of tertium comparationis may be understood as a point of proximity of objects to be compared or on the contrary, of the differences existing between them, as in the case of two distinct cultures and ethnolinguistic ¹² communities.

The notion of tertium comparationis is used in a significant part of the theoretical approaches which perform comparative discourse analysis, such as the researches of CLESTHIA axe sens et discours . This research centre is experienced in comparative linguistic, cultural and discourse analysis. In the French journal “Les Carnets du Cediscor” ( VON MÜNCHOW; RAKOTONOELINA, 2006 ), among others), one can find comparative studies about different cultures (French and English, French and American, French and Russian, etc.) based on the comparison of two, three, four or more languages and cultures simultaneously. The problem of choice of tertium comparationis is explicitly or implicitly discussed in almost all the contributions to the comparison issue. In most works of this school, the tertium comparationis is a discursive genre:

The discurse genre often presents itself as a tertium comparationis in the contrastive investigation […] This preference for the discourse genre can be explained by the qualities of the latter. The discourse genre is defined by Mikhail Bakhtin as a relatively steady type of utterance. ( RIBEIRO, 2015 , p.106, translation mine) ¹³

In fact, as stated by Claudel and Tréguer-Felten (VON MÜNCHOW, Les Carnets du Cediscor , 9, 2006, PSN, p.23-37), it belongs to an etic point of view (following Pike’s terminology ¹⁴ ) that a type of discourse genre may be considered provisionally “the same” in two distinct linguistic contexts and cultures. According to Cislaru (2006) , a same potential of semantic reference is a possible tertium comparationis . This theory, however, still needs corroboration, which may be obtained by the practice of comparative discoursive analysis between different languages and cultures.

It’s important to underline that, in comparative discoursive analysis, “comparable” doesn’t mean “identical”, but “what gets closer” ¹⁵ (op.cit, p.7-9). As it is shown by Traverso (2006) , in the tertium comparationis everything must be a subject of comparison, including the comparison tools themselves.

For the French researchers Patricia von Münchow and Florimond Rakotonoelina (2006, p.9-17), “the most important task in the comparative studies is the relation between description and interpretation and in particular, the establishment of reliable interpretative categories to link up the description results to cultural values” ¹⁶ . The present study adopts this perspective.

With respect to the comparison between the two events analysed in this paper, I choose as a tertium comparatonis the genre “economic forum session” and two of its parameters: the communication topic (more precisely, the evaluative emphasis and the social evaluations in the way of introducing the topic in speech) and the speakers’ status (plus the speaker’s self-presentation), which will be described further on. Within the context of speech, it is supposed that the way of introducing the topic brings important elements to our analysis proposal, for two reasons: first, because it refers to the Russian tradition of comparative analysis between cultures, and secondly, because it concerns Volóchinov’s “social horizon” and “social evaluations”.

Research corpus analysis

The way of introducing the topic was chosen as a comparison parameter between the studied discourses. The complexity of the current analysis is that we are not only comparing the scientific-political-business discourse genres in two different countries, but also introducing this new type of discourse in comparison to the traditional scientific discourse. Which means that the comparison occurs at two levels. The main idea is to introduce and to explain the scientific-political-business discourse in general as a phenomenon. In this study, it is not intended to do a profound comparison of the topic, subject, thematic content and utterances’ significations, as Volóchinov suggested – which may be an idea for another paper –, but the objective is to compare a way of introducing topics of the scientific-political-business discourse in both countries and to show a tendency to proximity between the scientific topic and the scientific-political-business discourse topic. The way of introducing the topic in a lecture, session or discussion is important for the speech studies, for it is constituting a manner of verbal interaction.

In Bakhtin’s theory, the topic is understood as “the meaning of the whole utterance” and it’s defined not only by linguistic forms but, also by the extra verbal aspects of the situation: “the utterance topic is as concrete as the historical moment to which it belongs” ( VOLÓCHINOV, 2017 , p.227-228). In the material analysed, we find proximities between the topics in traditional scientific and the scientific-political-business discourses. The speech topic in the scientific-political-business discourse can be an analogue to that of the traditional science, and it’s introduced in two ways: firstly, the event’s written program to name a session or lecture; secondly, it can be announced by the moderator, who is presenting the speakers, to introduce the topic to the listeners and to thank the sponsors. Some examples of this second way of introducing the topic follow below:

In São Paulo Diverso , a material in Portuguese:

1. Presenter 1 (journalist): hello… good afternoon, everyone… please… let’s sit down … sitting down… so… we are already back to follow the panels (of the second forum) São Paulo Diverso… An Affirmative Economic Development Forum (…) I would like to remember that this second forum São Paulo Diverso is being broadcast in real-time by Africa News portal…the web page is www.portalafricas.com.br... and our topic in this next panel is “Entrepreneurship for the Afro-descendant Population… The Relationship between the Big Companies and the Microcredit Offer”…;

The moderator draws the audience’s attention to the beginning of the event and she introduces the topics: entrepreneurship for the afro-descendant population, the relationship with the big companies and the microcredit offer. This way of introducing the topic is common in both countries. Afterwards, another speaker, a Itaú Bank’s representative, presents herself officially and confirms her competence to speak about the subject. Here, the topic introduction, the practical experience and the speaker’s status are already mixed. The speaker is introducing the communication subject through her experience:

2. Speaker 1: (…) well… good afternoon… so… first of all, thanks for the invitation… thanks for the opportunity to share, and also to exchange a bit of experience (…) I would like to share some thoughts – I think I will speak about the topic that everyone would expect me about the most to speak– the microcredit issue (…) I have been responsible for the sustainability networks in the bank for 5 years already now and I assumed the operation that we call inclusive business… where the microcredit is and the program with women and other stuff are…;

To emphasize her competence in one of the event’s subject, namely the microcredit offer, the speaker explains: “I have been responsible for the sustainability networks in the bank for 5 years already and I assumed the operation that…”. This “awareness” of her position in business has to do with social psychology sphere, according to Volóchinov. The speaker shows her experience and her opinion is accepted as an authority by the audience. Examining the development of the topics analysed during the session, we see that the primacy of practical experience over theoretical knowledge is common in that type of discourse. In the genre “economic forum session”, the data relating to speech authority are marked by an experience in business sphere, and not by a theoretical knowledge relating to studies/researches conducted meticulously, as in the traditional scientific discourse.

Later, another speaker introduces the second topic of the round table, entrepreneurship for women, and makes an institutional presentation of the speaker (a Dupont’s corporate representative). This kind of presentation and self-presentation is typical in the scientific-political-business discourse in both countries:

3. Speaker 2: (…) thanks… good afternoon, everyone… secretary Prestan… thanks for the invitation… it is a pleasure to be here with you… Dupont… an American company – regardless of its French name –more than 200 years old… and we have diversity and inclusion programs all over the world… and the best definition that I have for that isdiversity … it’s a mix… andinclusionis to make the mix work…

By naming his own title as a Dupont representative, the ideas exposed in his speech may be considered as the company’s official position (“and we have programs…”), not only in Brazil but “ all over the world ”. In the next sentence, the speaker indicates that the topic discussed (diversity and inclusion) is already common and developed within the company that he represents. In this sense, Dupont can be considered to be an ideological sign ¹⁷ with a certain topic, content and evaluative emphasis; some of these emphases being “diversity and inclusion”, understood as positive qualities in the business world in general. It is possible to say that, in this context, the social evaluation of the represented notions is positive.

Now the examples of the Brazilian material are to be compared with the Russian ones and we’ll examine how the topics are introduced in them, with what evaluative emphases and social evaluations, and how the speakers are presented in the Russian Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Forum:

1. Moderator(Authorized public representative of the chair of the Russian Federation for the Protection of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises): (…) I would like to start our work with this… to notice that the forum of this year… our traditional forum of St. Petersburg… has a very wide international representation… it now moves along at the same pace with the Finnish platform here… and we are very grateful that this year the Latin American countries are represented at a very high level… today you can hear – and we show you the countries’ top representatives – but the most important… are the people who in their own countries are responsible for the development of small and medium-sized enterprises… for the exportations… the cooperation… and it is for us… of course… a great honour… ¹⁸ …;

In this example, the moderator promotes the event and presents the speakers (“today you can hear… the countries’ top representatives…”), introduces the region (Latin America) and the session topics (“development of the small and medium-sized enterprises”). The way of introducing the topic can be compared with the first example of the Brazilian material; the two examples show a simple way of introducing the topic, i.e. the speaker does not put together the introduction with other rhetoric tactics or argumentation; he only announces the topic. It is observed that the two participants in these examples are not speakers but moderators; hence, we can consider that the more neutral and official way of introducing the topic belongs to the role of moderator in both countries.

In the next example, another speaker presents herself as a Yuniástrum Bank’s official and introduces the topic in her speech: entrepreneurship for women. The same manner of presenting oneself institutionally and by one’s position in the business world was already observed in the material in Portuguese and therefore, it is a typical characteristic of the scientific-political-business discourse in Brazil as well as in Russia.

2. Speaker 1 (First Vice-President of the Yuniástrum ¹⁹ Bank Council): (…) good afternoon… dear colleagues… dear friends… within the scope of the Federal Government Assistance for Small Businesses… the Yuniástrum Bank highlighted today a main orientation… this promising segment… specifically in relation to this, we signed an agreement with Opóra ²⁰ ... in close collaboration with Opóra Rossíi we created, and we now actively make new products already… products directed to the support and the development of the social entrepreneurship in general… and of the entrepreneurship for women in particular (…);

In this example, we notice the evaluative emphasis in progress (“promising segment”) and in practical experience (“we now actively make new products already”).

Another way of introducing the session topic is to start it with the signing of an agreement or a covenant between the participants (the companies’ representatives or the state and government structures). We can exemplify that with the following:

Moderato (Managing Partner of the National Agency of Financial Studies): (…) we start our session with the signing of an agreement between Opóra Rossíi and Yuniástrum Bank… the signing of an agreement for the support to women’s business development… this is very important… a very important initiative… and we will actually celebrate this signing(…); r ²¹

In the example above, the moderator introduced some of the communication’s participants (Opóra Rossíi’s and Yuniástrum Bank’s official representatives) as well as the session topic (entrepreneurship for women). This way of introducing the communication topic is recurrent in the scientific-political-business discourse but not in the traditional scientific discourse, which may be a sign of influence from the other spheres, such as political and/or business on the scientific one.

To sum up the topics discussed during both events, we have: 1. the development of small and medium-sized enterprises, microcredit, and the relationship with big companies; 2. social entrepreneurship; 3. diversity and inclusion; 4. business development for women. The coincidence of the four topics in two discourses in different languages and countries justifies the comparison between the chosen utterances, and it points out the existence of ideological similarities, thereby bringing closer the current, globalized, mode of production which is common in Brazil as well as in Russia.

By comparing the utterances in both languages, we notice the following characteristics relating to the introduction and the development of the topic in the scientific-political-business discourse:

Tableau 3 – The comparison of utterances in Russian and in Portuguese.

	PORT	RUS
Institutional presentation	Occurres in both languages. It is very common in this type of discourse that one presents himself/herself under the banner of the company or business: on the part of Dupont or on the part of St. Petersburg’s forum, in the present examples.
Internationalism, international representation	Yes, positive evaluation: “and we have diversity and inclusion programs all over the world ” – as a confirmation of the right to speak about the subject.	Yes, positive evaluation: “our traditional St. Petersburg’s forum has a very wide international representation ”.
Professional (practical) experience confers authority to speech	Yes, often: “I have been responsible for the sustainability networks in the bank for 5 years already and I assumed the operation that we call inclusive business…”.	Yes, positive evaluation: “in close collaboration with Opóra Rossíi we created, and we now actively implement new products already …”.
Features of oral speech	The language simulates proximity, familiarity. The lecturer may call a journalist by her name in the diminutive – Claud inha . The lecturer thanks personally the secretary for his invitation and doesn’t mention the event’s organizers in general, which emphasizes the importance of personal relations in the Brazilian discourse.	The language is more official and the style more conventional and formal, with more emphasis on the words “ very important”, “honour”, “high level”. These words circulate in the same sentences where we find the concepts “development” and “cooperation”, which emphasizes a positive evaluation of these concepts.

Source: Author's elaboration.

The remarks were made based not only on the examples cited in this paper, but also on the comparative analysis of the material in general. The paper format, unfortunately, does not allow to show all the examples. In the comparison results, we see that social evaluations of the economic concepts such as “diversity”, “development”, “inclusion” and “cooperation” are positive in both discourses. The specific studies about the social evaluations of these concepts, in Russia or in Brazil in general, weren’t found.

Examining the speakers’ verbal interaction and the features of oral speech, we see that the Russian speech is more formal and that the speakers use resources of a more conventional style. It seems to us that this aspect comes from the Russian scientific style, for the parameters such as “logic”, “abstraction”, “generalization” and the attempt to appear “objective” bring closer in Russia both discourses: the scientific-political-business discourse and the traditional scientific discourse (a quality that influenced the choice of the name given to this new type of discourse – scientific -political-business discourse). Compared to the academic speech, we see a great emphasis on professional practice and experience (of the individual or of the company or institution), which can be considered one of the most important characteristics of the scientific-political-business discourse.

In the Brazilian material, the speakers have a less formal style, they try to simulate proximity and familiarity in personal relations and give the same emphasis to practical experience. This remark concerns not only the discourse analysed, but more generally the Brazilian verbal interaction compared to the Russian one – at least, that’s our hypothesis so far. More comparative studies between the two countries would help us to elucidate this issue.

The proximity between the discourse that we examined, and the traditional scientific discourse is also observed in the topic. The subject matters discussed during the afore-mentioned event are related to business and economy, even if it’s possible to find very similar subject matters in the academic field. Some topics comparable to those above-mentioned, may appear in conferences, congresses and other scientific events, as we can see below. The examples are from Brazil.

1. “The microcredit offer to small and medium-sized companies” (São Paulo Diverso)

Compare with the scientific article “Microcredit impact on small business enterprising: Bancri/SC’s case ²² ” [“ Impacto do microcrédito junto ao empreendedor de pequenos negócios: o caso do Bancri/SC ”], Tales Andreassi, Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Revista administração em diálogo (RAD), PUC-SP, January 2004.

1. “Entrepreneurship for women” (São Paulo Diverso + Russian Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Forum)

Compare, for instance, with Michele Maria Silva Franco’s communication, among others, “Feminine Entrepreneurship: Women’s entrepreneur characteristics in Micro and Small Companies Management” [“ Empreendedorismo Feminino: Características Empreendedoras das Mulheres na Gestão das Micro e Pequenas empresas ”], presented in VIII EGEPE (Encontro de Estudos em Empreendedorismo e Gestão de Pequenas Empresas), Goiânia, 2014 ²³ .

1. “Diversity and inclusion in business” (São Paulo Diverso)

Compare with the conference cycle “Rethinking Brazil” (“ Repensar o Brasil ”), that took place for the 70 years of FEAUSP. Among the topics discussed, there were: “Corporative integrity in Brazil” and “Inequality in Brazil” ²⁴ .

The event in question denotes an interest in the subject matter already discussed by USP – without any direct connection between these events, which shows us that the subject matter is relevant for both spheres (the scientific and business ones) in present-day Brazil (year 2016).

1. “The development of small and medium-sized companies” (São Paulo Diverso + Russian Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Forum)

Compare with the paper “Developing small and medium-sized companies in cluster” ²⁵ [“ Desenvolvimento de pequenas e médias empresas em cluster ”], Marcos Albertin, Márcio Soares Torres, Federal University of Ceará.

Concerning the scientific paper on the development of small and medium-sized companies, we see that the subject matter is approached in both countries, even if there is no direct link between the authors from the Federal University of Ceará and the organizers or speakers from São Paulo Diverso and the Russian Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Forum . This subjects’ comparison list is too long; in short, we notice the proximity between the topics’ choice and formulation in the traditional scientific discourse and scientific-political-business one, which seems to reinforce our hypothesis of the similarity between the subject matters of both types of discourse and the mutual influence of the scientific sphere and the business sphere, in the second case.

Another comparison parameter of the scientific-political-business discourse is the speaker’s status , in which we can notice the proximity with the traditional scientific discourse again. We also notice a tendency (almost a fashion) among the government structures representatives to acquire, or to seek to obtain, an academic qualification such as a PhD or, at least, a master’s degree. In this sense, we can see an interaction between the three fields involved in the discourse formation: the academic, political and entrepreneurial spheres. In most events, the speakers represent these three spheres and have status , i.e. they possess the necessary academic qualification to confer reliability to their speeches. Sometimes, the speakers represent the three spheres simultaneously, by showing an evident dialogue between them. This idea merges the three spheres and agrees with Bakhtin’s remark on the unification of the different spheres of human activity, which takes place in the individual: “The three fields of human activity – science, art and life – only acquire unity in the individual who incorporates them to his own unity…” ( BAKHTIN, 2013 , p.22). In our material, we observe other spheres (science, business, politics and life), although the essence of the comparison remains the same.

In these events, we find two possibilities: first, they bring together participants with qualifications and status from different spheres; secondly, one and the same person can combine theses spheres, thereby presenting them simultaneously (for instance, science and business, or science and politics). We can see some examples of that in the corpus of this study.

1. The speaker’s status is from different areas, even though they treat the same subject and get together in the same session. In the Russian Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Forum one can find representatives:

1. Of the academic world, like Dr. Yevgiénya Sóboleva and Dr. Andriéy Sharóv, who are PhD in Law;

2. Of the political sphere and of the state and government structures, for instance, Jessy C. Petite-Frère, Trade and Industry Minister of Haiti; Serguéy Movtchán, St. Petersburg’s vice-governor, and Yevguéniy Zhikh, spokesperson of the National Committee for Promoting the Economic Cooperation with the Latin-American Countries in St. Petersburg;

3. Of the executive area, for instance, Alexánder Tarabtcév, Trade Department and Investments Operations Managing Director; PJSC “OFC Bank”; Yevguéniy Droféiev, OOO “Metalloproduktciya”’s Chief Executive Officer, among others.

1. Second occurrence (the presence of at least two or three spheres – science, politics and business – in the status of the same participant): when a speaker holds two posts or works for the government and for a university simultaneously, when a person from the business world possess an academic qualification, etc. In São Paulo Diverso , for instance, Claudia Alexandre ²⁶ presents herself in the following way: “Broadcaster and TV presenter; event manager (SENAC); professor at HOTEC Faculty; she received a bachelor’s degree in Social Communication-FIAM–SP; she’s a specialist and a postgraduate in Religious Sciences (PUC-SP); she studies the Afro-Brazilian culture (symbols, rites and memory)”. The same emphasis on academic qualification is demonstrated by another speaker, Denise Hills: “Denise Hills received a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration and holds a specialization in Economy by FIPE – University of São Paulo’s Economic Research Institute Foundation. She has 24 years of experience in financial market, always operating in the field of Treasury, Asset Management, Financial Planning and Wealth Management…” ²⁷ .

As for the Russian Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Forum²⁸ , the moderator of the session on the collaboration between Russia and Latin-America, Dr. Carlos E. Chanduvi-Suarez, combines two spheres in his status: business and academia. He holds a PhD in Advanced Materials as well as holds a Chief post in the Latin America and the Caribbean Office UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization). Another participant, Ricardo Bosnic Kuscevic, PROChile’s ²⁹ development sub-director, shows in his official ³⁰ profile two spheres of dialogue: business and science. He highlights an education in three universities: France’s National School of Administration (ENA), University of Heidelberg and University of Chile. The speaker Manuela Gomes de Lima is the head of the intelligence unity on business and corporate strategy of APEX Brasil ³¹ . She also publishes papers on economic and scientific topics related to her field of studies, among others: “International trade and Brazil’s competitiveness: a comparative study using the Constant-Market-Share’s methodology for the 2000-2011 period” (DOI 10.1590/1982-3533.2015v24n2art7) in collaboration with Marcos Lélis, professor of the Post-graduate Program in Economy of the University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos, and André Moreira Cunha, professor from Economy and International Relations Department” ³² .

The examples that were presented show a dialogue between the three spheres (business, politics and science) regarding the speaker’s status , which was chosen as a comparison parameter between the two events in Brazil and in Russia.

Final considerations

The general aim of this paper was to describe a new and popular type of discourse in the modern reality. Although it’s relatively young, this scientific-political-business discourse is more and more common all over the world. Some examples of this type of discourse are found in economic forums, round tables, lectures and other official events, wherein the intersection of different spheres occurs: business (corporative), politics and science.

The second task of this study was to compare discourses from Brazil and Russia. The theoretical-methodological approach was of Bakhtinian inspiration and united studies from Brazil, France and Russia. The French side is represented by the ideas of CLESTHIA Research Group and the notion of tertium comparationis , elaborated by it. The study discusses the two axes of Bakhtin’s theory: ideology (by examining the notions of “social horizon” and “social evaluations”) and social psychology, i.e. everyday ideology.

The dialogical (semantic-axiological) relations between the scientific, political and business spheres, in accordance with the analysed data, can be observed in the following parameters: topic, event localisation and speaker’s status. The analysis of these parameters allows us to distinguish the traditional scientific discourse, considering the dialogical nature of scientific communication in general, from the scientific-political-business discourse. The scientific-political-business discourse refers to the scientific topic, although it takes place outside of the scientific institutions and with speakers from other spheres (usually from business or politics). The speaker’s status is influenced by the scientific sphere, for in the scientific-political-business discourse a significant part of the lecturers possesses academic qualifications, and they even represent scientific institutions sometimes. From these parameters, we examine Bakhtin’s “scientifically valid” qualities, and two of them – the topic which is analogous to the scientific and to the academic qualification ones – are considered parameters to perform a comparison.

In this type of discourse, we notice the proximity of evaluative emphasis in similar genres, in the modern reality of both countries. For both, the evaluation of “progress”, “practical experience”, of the concepts of “diversity”, “development”, “inclusion” and “cooperation”, “internationalism” and “professional experience” is positive. The hypothesis is that there’s an “apparent” ideological similarity due to global economic relations, which are common in both countries, and which affect in turn the socio-political regime and the verbal interactions.

There are different ways to present the topic of oral communications: 1. written in the event program; 2. by the moderator of a discussion or a lecture, and 3. by signing an agreement or covenant between the participants (companies’ representatives or state and government structures’ representatives). The first two ways of introducing the topic are common in the two discourses compared in this study: the traditional scientific discourse and the scientific-political-business discourse. The third one is more common in the scientific-political-business discourse, and it has not been noticed in the traditional scientific discourse. The most common is to introduce the topic through the speaker’s competence and practical experience; in the scientific-political-business discourse, the practical experience confers more authority to the speaker who has theoretical knowledge, although many speakers seek out academic qualifications as a way to seem like authorities in the matter.

To legitimate business practices, the scientific-political-business discourse intends to take over the reliability status that scientific arguments possess in modern world, even if that discourse is not necessarily scientific when compared to the traditional scientific discourse. The comparison of topics from scientific-political-business discourse with topics from the traditional scientific discourse allows us to confirm that the speech topic, in this type of discourse, tends to appear scientific. The topics presented in the forums are also developed by science; however, the scientific-investigative/theoretical-argumentative tone does not participate in the presentations. In fact, the topics are developed in two different ways: on a scientific level as an argumentative subject matter, and on a business level as a practice. The data relating to speech authority are marked in the genre “economic forum session” by the experience in the business sphere, and not by academic theoretical knowledge. Another factor that deserves attention is that the scientist must be unbiased and rigorous in the analysis of a vast databank, whereas the speaker not only does not present the same variety and rigour (usually treating the company’s own data as well as the statistics that corroborate them), but is not unbiased neither, i.e. the evaluative emphasis is always positive for the very business practices that he represents/executes. Hence, the inference that this genre subordinates the scientific practice to the business one.

In both countries, one can see that most of presentations and self-presentations in the studied discourse are institutional, thereby representing an institution or company. In the scientific-political-business discourse, the names of the companies (they are generally big and well-known) are an ideological sign with a certain topic, content and evaluative emphasis. By comparing the modes of verbal interaction in the genre “economic forum session” in both countries, we notice that, in Brazil, the communication situations intend to simulate familiarity in treatment. In Russia, the communication situations esteem formality and distance.

At the end of this study, we can consider that event topics have a potential to be developed by science. The lecturers use their academic qualifications to legitimize their practices, possibly due to the status that science has reached in the contemporary world as the voice of “truth”. The same tendency is observed in Brazil and in Russia.

The relevant remark, for the moment, is that the influence between the three spheres analysed in this paper is mutual, yet asymmetrical; and that they establish dialogical relations in the Bakhtinian sense. For the time being, we search a methodology that allows us to compare similar discourses in different languages and ethnolinguistic communities. The subject still needs to be developed and detailed in the future, by taking examples from other languages and discourses.

Acknowledgment

The research was conducted with the financial support from FAPESP, proc. № 2015/10458-0.

REFERÊNCIAS

• BAKHTIN, M. M. Para uma filosofia do ato. Texto completo da edição americana “Toward a Philosophy of the Act”. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993. Translation and notes by Vadim Liapunov. Edited by Michael Holquist and Vadim Liapunov. Tradução de Carlos Alberto Faraco e Cristovão Tezza.
• BAKHTIN, M. M. Estética da criação verbal. Tradução de Paulo Bezerra. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2003.
• BAKHTIN, M. M. Estética da criação verbal . Tradução de Paulo Bezerra. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2013.
• BEACCO, J.-C. Les genres textuels dans l’analyse du discours: écriture légitime et communautées translangagières. Langage , v.26, n.105, p.8-27, 1992.
• CISLARU, G. Noms de pays et autoreprésentation dans le discours des périodiques nationaux français, anglophones, roumanophones et russes. Les Carnets du Cediscor , n.9, p.131-144, 2006. Disponível em: <http://cediscor.revues.org/669>. Acesso em: 18 set. 2017.
  » http://cediscor.revues.org/669
• CORACINI, M. J. Um fazer persuasivo. O Discurso Subjetivo da Ciência. São Paulo: Pontes, 1991.
• GRILLO, S. V. C. Divulgação científica: linguagens, esferas e gêneros. 2013. 333 f. Tese parcial para (Livre docência em Filologia e Língua Portuguesa) – Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2013.
• KÓJINA, M. N. Stilístika rússkogo iazyká . (Estilística da língua russa). Moscou: Flinta, 2008.
• KOTIÚROVA, M. P. Idiostilístika naútchnoi riétchi . Náchi predstavliéniia o rietchevói individuálnosti utchiónogo: monográfiiia ( Idioestilística do discurso científico . Nossas representações da individualidade discursiva do cientista: monografia). Perm: Perm. Gos. Universitiét, 2011.
• RIBEIRO, M. P. “Droite” et “gauche” dans les discours d’un événement electoral. Une étude sémantique et contrastive des presses brésilienne et française. Les élections présidentielles de 2002 au Brésil et de 2007 en France. 2015. 498 f. Tese (Doutorado em Ciências da Linguagem) – Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris, 2015.
• ROSENTAL, D. E. et al. Sovremiénnyi rússkii iazyk (Língua russa contemporânea). Moscou: Víschaia chkóla, 1991.
• TRAVERSO, V. Repères pour la comparaison d’interactions dans une perspective interculturelle. Les Carnets du Cediscor, n.9, 2006. [Não paginado]. Disponível em: <http://cediscor.revues.org/617>. Acesso em: 14 ago. 2017.
  » http://cediscor.revues.org/617
• VOLÓCHINOV, V. N. Marxismo e Filosofia da Linguagem: problemas do método sociológico na ciência da linguagem. Tradução de S. Grillo e E. Volkova. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2017.
• VON MÜNCHOW, P.; RAKOTONOELINA, F. Discours, cultures, comparaisons. Avant-propos. Les Carnets du Cediscor , n. 9, 2006. [Não paginado]. Disponível em: <https://journals.openedition.org/cediscor/65>. Acesso em: 14 ago. 2017.
  » https://journals.openedition.org/cediscor/65

• 1
  The studies of the Research Group Diálogo , USP, of which I am a member.
• 2
  Research Centre on Specialized and Ordinary Discourses ( Centre de recherche sur les discours ordinaires et spécialisés ).
• 3
  Mikhail Bakhtin’s expression, to be explained later.
• 4
  Here, I refer to the Russian notion of “retchev’ye jánry”, which was translated to English as “discursive genres” or “genres of discourse”. Bakhtin speaks about this phenomenon in 1952-1953: “Obviously, each particular utterance is individual, though each language use field elaborates its own relatively steady types of utterances, which we call genres of discourse” [In Portuguese: “Evidentemente, cada enunciado particular é individual, mas cada campo de utilização da língua elabora seus tipos relativamente estáveis de enunciados, os quais denominamos gêneros do discurso”] ( BAKHTIN, 2003 , p.261-262). In this paper, I will follow Bakhtin’s definition.
• 5
  Valid or ‘significative’, as in Russian it is “значимое” (my translation).
• 6
  The idea of categories unity, or validities in human life or in a person, is developed in another work of Bakhtin (“Art and Responsibility”) and is correlated with the analytical part of this paper, where we deal with the speakers’ status.
• 7
  Further on, when he deals with the discursive interaction, Volóchinov brings the notion of “social psychology” closer to that of “everyday ideology”, considering that the word “ideology” is more appropriate to the sociological method than “psychology” (VOLÓCHINOV, 2017, p.201-227).
• 8
  On the impact on the listener during the discourse formation, cf. Bakhtin “The problem of speech genres” (2003), Volóchinov (1976 and 2017) “Discourse in life and discourse in art” and Marxism and philosophy of language .
• 9
  “dlia pieriedátchi naútchnoi informátsii podgotóvliennoi i zaintieriesóvannoi auditórii”.
• 10
  The term comes from the Russian functional stylistics school and refers to the “tone” of speech, i.e. if it’s more categorical (e.g. “No doubt, that’s true!”) or less categorical (e.g. “perhaps”, “it may possibly be that…”, “I find that…”).
• 11
  The text is written or spoken (oriented) considering the reader’s answer or perception.
• 12
  In accordance with J. C. Beacco (1992 , p.17), we define ethnolinguistic community as “a communication community that coincides with a linguistic/national community”.
• 13
  Original in French: «Le genre discursif se présente très souvent comme tertium comparationis dans les recherches contrastives [...] Cette préférence pour le genre discursif s’explique par les propriétés de ce dernier. Le genre de discours est défini, par Mikhaïl Bakhtine, comme un type relativement stable d’énoncé”.
• 14
  In 1967, Kenneth Pike proposed the dichotomy etic/emic in anthropology and afterwards, in linguistics as a way to approach philosophical issues about the very nature of objectivity. In anthropology, in folklor studies and in social sciences and psychology, emic and etic refer to two kinds of field-work carried on and to two points of view obtained: [1] emic , from the subject’s perspective, and etic , from the observer’s perspective. One should admit that, at all levels – from the choice of the discursive type to the construction of the corpus and the selection of comparison categories –, we approach phenomena that seem to correlate in all the languages and cultures studied, from the etic ’s point of view as well as from the observer’s.
• 15
  Original excerpt in French: « ‘‘ comparable ’’ ne veut pas dire ‘‘ identique ’’ , mais ‘‘ approchant ’’ ».
• 16
  Original excerpt in French: « Le plus grand chantier des approches comparatives contemporaines reste sans doute l’articulation entre la description et l’interprétation et, en particulier, l’établissement des catégories interprétatives fiables, permettant de relier les résultats de la description à des valeurs culturelles répertoriées ».
• 17
  An ideological sign is a material fragment (e.g. sound, word, mass, colour), a product of social interaction, which may be verbal. It “is determined by the social horizon of a period and of a social group” ( VOLÓCHINOV, 2017 , p.110).
• 18
  In Russian: Ia by khotiél natchát náchu rabótu... s togó tcho... otmiétit tcho... v etom godú na fórumie... náchiem sankt-pietierbúrjskom fórume traditsiónnom ótchien vysókoie miejdunaródnoie priedstavítielstvo... vot sieitchá sparaliélno idut i s fínnami ploschiádka... zdies... i my ótchien blagodárny tchto v étom godú otchién vysókuiu / na vysókom úrovnie priedstávlieny strány latínskoi amiériki... Vy siegódnia smójietie usly’chati my priezientúiem vysókogo úrovnia priedstavítielei stran... no tchto sámoie glávnoie... ímienno tiékh liudiei kotóryie v svoíkh stránakh otvietcháiut za razvítiie málogo i sriéniego priedpriiátiia... za éksport... za koopierátsiiu... i dlia nas eto koniétchno bolcháia tchiést ...; Translations mine.
• 19
  Yuniástrum Bank (ЮниаструмБанк) – one of the biggest Russian banks ( https://www.uniastrum.ru ).
• 20
  OpóraRossíi (ОпораРоссии) – a Russian public organization for small and medium-sized enterprises ( http://opora.ru ).
• 21
  In Russian: natchnióm náchu siéssiiu s podpisániia dogovóra miéjdu Opóroi Rossíi i bánkom Iuniástrum... podpisániie dogovóra o poddiérjkie razvítiia jiénskogo priédprinimátielstva... eto ótchien vájno... i my na sámom diélie sobiráiemsia otmiétit éto podpisániie ...
• 22
  http://revistas.pucsp.br . Access in: 12 oct. 2016.
• 23
  http://www.egepe.org.br , Universidade de Passo Fundo. Access in: 12 oct. 2016.
• 24
  The material used was obtained from the faculty’s own website: http://www.fea.usp.br . Access in: 12 oct. 2016.
• 25
  http://www.abepro.org.br . Access in: 12 oct. 2016.
• 26
  http://claudinhaalexandre.blogspot.ru/2014/10/sao-paulo-diverso-forum-de.html . Access in: 12 oct. 2016.
• 27
  http://www.sustainablebrands.com/users/denise_hills# . Access in: 12 oct. 2016.
• 28
  Translations mine.
• 29
  An institution from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile in charge to “promote the exportation of Chilean consumer goods and services, and to contribute for the dissemination of foreign investment and to promote tourism”. http://www.prochile.gob.cl . Access in: 14 oct. 2016.
• 30
  http://www.prochile.gob.cl . Access in: 14 oct. 2016.
• 31
  “The Brazilian Trade and Investment Promotion Agency (Apex-Brazil) works to promote Brazilian products and services abroad and to attract foreign investment to strategic sectors of the Brazilian economy.”. http://www.apexbrasil.com.br . Access in: 14 oct. 2016.
• 32
  “Brazil in face of Chinese rise: the risks of regressive specialization”, also in collaboration with Marcos Lélis and André Cunha, besides JulimarBichara, professor atthe Autonomous University of Madrid (Spain).

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Sep-Dec 2018

History

• Received
  27 Sept 2017
• Accepted
  19 Feb 2018