The Language in the Common-Sense Speech: ideology and imaginary

This research is part of our Master’s thesis, and it proposes to analyze the statements expressed in the common sense about the language, in order to understand which ideology and the linguistic imaginary that cross these statements. Many studies have already been undertaken in relation to speeches about the language, highlighting those of Mariani (2004), who analyzed the speeches of writers and politicians, grammarians and scholars - people of influence in the society of Brazil colony. Thus, we propose to carry out this analysis to know the imaginary language that circulates in common sense, from comments of Internet users in the official fanpage of the Planalto Palace on Facebook, the first official pronouncement of President Michel Temer abroad. The theoretical perspective adopted is that of the Theory of Enunciation (BENVENISTE, 1989), focused on the presuppositions of Semantics of the Event (GUIMARÃES, 2002), and making use of the analytical movement of the rewriting procedure. We observe an imaginary language perpetuated in common sense based on the idea of a homogeneous, pure and idealized language; as well as being confused with spoken language and written language, having as a criterion for a Portuguese spoken in a “correct” way the approximation and fidelity to grammar.

The Language in the Common-Sense Speech: ideology and imaginary

INTRODUTION
At dawn of September 2, 2016, the ear is attentive to a speech transmitted live by the Official Fanpage of the Palace of the Planalto in which resounds a voice that causes a flood of comments of internauts instantly. It is the president Michel Temer in his first statement abroad, in Shanghai, China, after the process that resulted in the impeachment of former President Dilma Rousseff.
"Long live the right Portuguese for the new president!", "Our mother tongue is spoken correctly again", "What a perfect and classy speech", "We have a literate president" [...], the talk of Temer about eight minutes. Finally, among the thousands of comments in the video of the broadcast, what is evident is the reference to the Portuguese spoken by the president, who according to these internauts reflects the true language of the Brazilian people. But what language do these guys speak?
Thus, our corpus is constituted by a set of comments produced by Internet users about the pronouncement of President Michel Temer in a video broadcast during his first visit abroad. The highlight in the comments are the numerous and numerous references to the Portuguese language used by the president. In all, there were approximately 20 thousand comments, of which about one third are in this area, referring to the language. In the process of constitution and cut of the corpus we realize that the Portuguese language spoken by the president is incessantly signified in order to determine the quality of the use of a "cultured" variant of President Temer, materialized by the recurrent use of complimentary and evaluative adjectives. Thus, we chose to select a set of comments from the most recurring phrases that determine or specify meaning modes of assessment of the use of the standard variety of the Portuguese language by the president. The cut-out comments are organized in two axes -constituted by nominal forms -to develop the analysis of the common-sense words for interpretation of the senses of language derived from opinions formulated in the perspective of a common-sense discourse.
The central question is to investigate what the common-sense imaginary about language is, and what common sense legitimizes as a language of power. To this end, we mobilize concepts that we consider essential for the development of the study. Deeper into the question of the imaginary and ideology that governs social thinking on language and pervades the most diverse spheres. This research constitutes as a contribution to the studies of speeches on the language, but on the bet side of what has been analyzed traditionally. Since much stops at the speeches of grammarians, writers, institutions, politicians and the media, but little attention is paid to the sayings on the language that circulate in common sense. In this sense, Faraco (2012) states that In the case of language, it is quite clear that what is said about it in common sense is, in fact, very little. But -we have to recognize -there is also very little what we have accomplished in terms of study and understanding of these discursive articulations of common sense. [...] There is, therefore, a lot still to be done in the disintegration of social sayings about language (p. 35).
Thus, we propose to develop a research that adds scientific knowledge in this new / another perspective of the sayings on the language. In addition, there is another factor directly involved in our work, since according to Dias (2018, p. 171) "Speaking in language in the current Brazilian political conjuncture is a privilege and at the same time a challenge. That is because language has always been a place of power. A trump, a weapon for control, regulation of populations." To know the imaginary that crosses the discourse of common sense is a way to understand how the senses around the power and the ideology move, constituting the subjects.

LANGUAGES IN CIRCULATION: MATERNAL, NATIONAL AND OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
A peculiarity common to all countries is the idea that they have a common language that characterizes them in relation to their social and interpersonal relations, both in the national and international context, which in principle makes the subjects to recognize themselves as belonging to the same nation, which gives them a sense of nationality. This language, in the common-sense imaginary, would be the official language, which may coincide with the mother tongue and is usually also a language or more of the national languages spoken within the nation. Often these three identifications are confused, as if they carry the same meaning, that is, they could even be used as a synonym. In the case of Brazil, Portuguese commonly coincides in the idea of the official language with the national and the mother tongue.
In order to distinguish these assignments, we will discuss each one in this chapter, presenting its definitions in the theoretical perspective of the historical semantics of enunciation, which takes the language in its functioning. In this case, we refer specifically to Brazil and its linguistic situation. This reflection is considered necessary from the meanings attributed by Internet users in the comments on the Facebook Page of the Planalto Palace, in which it is observed that there is no differentiation between one and another language designation, according to the political status it presents.
Language is a fundamental aspect of the establishment of unity of a State, since it establishes a bond with the people, it is built as an element of national territorial unity, thus contributing to the construction of its sovereignty. On the other hand, it also serves as a tool to control the masses, giving them voice and marginalizing them at the same time. An example of this is Nazism and fascism, in which the unity of nations was guaranteed through language, in the construction of a monolingual ideal, with the support of the mass media and propaganda. Among the criteria presented by Hobsbawn (1990, p. 49) is national identification through language, and this was done "by the existence of a long-established cultural elite possessing a written administrative and literary vernacular." We reiterate that in Brazil coexist three designations for the way languages are represented for the subjects: official, national and maternal. However, there is an immense confusion in the way they are understood, in relation to what each one represents, because in the common-sense imaginary they are equivalent, as if they all correspond to the only model of language, which is the standard Portuguese, as model of the school language of writing and endorsed by a grammar. Historically, as we have already mentioned, in Brazil the mother tongue has always been linked to the national language and official language and this relation has to do with denial of other national languages, not officially recognized, such as indigenous and immigrant languages, which contributed to the construction of a monolingual culture, fed mainly by nationalist policies. In this way, linguistic nationalism contributes to strengthen this type of coincidence, since it helps to guarantee a greater bond of belonging of the nation to the national state, since it requires a hegemonic language, thus reinforcing the false idea that we are born speaking the same language, an equal and unique language throughout Brazil.
According to the studies of Guimarães (2005), although in our country there is only one official language, Portuguese, there are still about 30 foreign languages, or about which is a historical-social factor, unknown to many. According to IBGE's 2010 data (201?), 274 indigenous languages of 305 different ethnic groups are spoken in Brazil.
In an interview for an article 1 on Brazil and its many languages, published on the website of the Institute for Research and Development in Linguistic Policy (IPOL), Rosângela Morello, general coordinator of IPOL, states that We only have an estimate of the number of languages spoken in Brazil. Regarding indigenous languages, Census data are larger than those that researchers often reproduce, which is around 180 indigenous languages. Besides these, research shows that there are 56 languages spoken by descendants of immigrants who have lived in Brazil for at least three generations (MORELLO).
And we rarely refer to any of these languages when speaking in national or mother tongue, considering that they are all national languages, since they coexist on national soil. As well, some of these languages are the mother tongues, or first language, of many Brazilian subjects, who were born and live in Brazil.
Thus, starting from the presupposition of the existence of this imaginary constituted by the discourse of common sense, we wish to deepen the reflection to understand the functioning of the official language, national and maternal.
"HE SPEAKS OUR LANGUAGE THE WAY IT SHOULD BE SPOKEN": LANGUAGE IMAGINARY Studying the imaginary is confronted with an extremely polysemic concept in the scientific field, since it pervades the researches of several areas of knowledge. In the field of knowledge of the social sciences, a possible theoretical position is that of Pesavento (1995, p. 24), who states that "the imaginary is therefore representation, evocation, simulation, meaning and meaning, of mirrors where the 'true' and the apparent merge, strange composition where the visible half evokes anything absent and difficult to perceive." This means that the imaginary raises a range of collective representations and socially formulated images.
At the same time, in the field of linguistic knowledge, the imaginary also pervades the concepts inherent in this science. Emphasizing that the theoretical line of which we are speaking is the enunciative, in which the subjective perspective of the language occurs in its operation. Just as there is an infinity of imaginaries, there is also an imaginary language, as Orlandi's (1988, p. 28) studies show, which defines imaginary languages as fiction-objects, and states that in general they "are the languages-systems, norms, constraints, institutionlanguages, a-historical. Construction. It is the systematization that causes them to lose their fluency and to focus on imaginary languages." The imaginary language is that prey to systems of normatization, such as grammars and dictionaries, is the idealized language. So that this language impossible to be experienced in reality begins to inhabit the thought of common sense, as a perfect model to be followed and to be considered a speaker of good Portuguese. This system of standardization of language consists basically in what Orlandi (1988, p. 29) points out, stating that a system such as grammar "leaves what language is to be as we believe it should be." Although the imaginary language apparently remains on the plane unreachable by the speakers, it somehow implies the linguistic reality, for "The imaginary language has a return on the real: it models it." Orlandi (1988, p. 29). From this crossing, the ideologies that govern and create judgments about the spoken language are constituted.
Pêcheux and Gadet (2004), in a discursive perspective, affirm that there is a language and there are languages, referring to the language of grammar and the full realization of the language. To this last one, the spoken language, Orlandi (1988, p. 34) denominates like fluent language, affirming that this one "cannot be contained in the framework of systems and formulas", and is the "Language in which very different processes coexist and whose history is made of abundance and movement." Without the plaster and inertia resulting from the normalization process, the fluid language consists of the living language, moving between the spaces of enunciation and producing meanings. Mariani and Medeiros (2007, p. 27), based on the assumptions of Orlandi (1988), affirm that "fluent language aims to understand languages in their discursive functioning, functioning in which they play the heterogeneities and multiplicities of the production of meanings in a given Historical period". In this way, the language used in everyday life, in the coexistence in society, is the fluid language, freed of norms, and permeated by socio-historical and political questions that constitute the linguistic identity of each individual. However, the notion of the imaginary language as the ideal prevails, according to which people's competence and intellectual capacity are often judged.
It is essential to emphasize that imaginary language is not the opposite of fluent language, because they are only two different linguistic functions. The imaginary language is consolidated in the plane of ideas, and the language is fluid in the daily plane of daily living. In this perspective, Guimarães (2003) presents two categories for imaginary language, and respectively, two categories for fluent language. One of the fluids is the mother tongue: "language whose speakers practice it because the society in which it is born to practice; and the other is the lingua franca: it is practiced by groups of speakers of different mother tongues, and who are speakers of this language for common intercourse" (p. 48).
In relation to the imaginary language, linked to institutional and imaginary (ideological) questions, the author emphasizes that it also has two categories of language: the national language and the official language. Thus, the first "is the language of a people, as a language that characterizes it, which gives its speakers a relation of belonging to this people" (GUIMARÃES, 2003, p. 48). The second is the "language of a State, which is obligatory in the formal actions of the State, in its legal acts".
It was thought that it was possible to contain the language in the framework of rules, norms and laws, that rulers tried to control its use by means of legislations. However, the power of the State has never fully attained its intended results, for the language is alive and escapes, running through the grids of the norms it imposes on it. As we have already mentioned, an example is the Politics of Nationalization imposed by Getulio Vargas in 1937, which sought to ensure national unity through a single language, Portuguese, to the detriment of the many languages of immigration spoken in Brazil. The decree unleashed a fierce linguistic persecution, punishing the subjects who continued speaking their mother tongue, consequently, hurting their linguistic identity, what springs up in the history until the present day, reflected in the life of who harvested the bitter fruits of the period of the State New.
The imaginary of a linguistic homogeneity nurtured the law, but nothing actually contained the subjects' language, the fluid language inherent in the daily practice of personal communication. Because as soon as the law was repealed, the mother tongues returned to their normal daily use, evidently now in a context that aroused fear and a certain insecurity, as shadows of prohibition still hovering, internalized in the unconscious of the speakers.
Thus, the workings of the imaginary and fluid language coexist, producing meanings all the time. The subjects inscribed in the fluid order in their linguistic practices are taken by the imaginary of an ideal language, the language of the norm, of the correction, as we observe in the commentary of one of the internauts: We perceive how the imaginary goes through the statement in the affirmation "our language speaks in the way it should be spoken [...]", evidencing that there is a way considered correct, a projection that the subjects do of what would be the language well-spoken, that would be reflected of the figure of the president Michel Temer in his speech.
As explained through the image, we are interested in understanding the functioning of the language imaginary in the context of this research, how it moves and produces meanings from the discourse of common sense.
In initial movements, we observe that in the corpus we have a meeting of the fluid language and the imaginary language. On one side there is President Temer, speaking a language that approaches the imaginary, because there is an attempt to speak as close to the standard variety. In the opposite position we have the speeches of the people, who write their statements approaching other varieties and pasted on the spoken language, without observing the norms, thus constituting the fluent language.
The enunciative sense present in the statements of the netizens is that although in the linguistic plane one does not have a speech ruled by the rules, because there are several grammatical errors, in the enunciative plane it maintains an imaginary, an imaginary language, because the people produce a discourse on the language and in defense of the good speak.

LINGUISTIC IDEOLOGY AND MEANING
The consolidation of linguistic standardization culminated in the emergence of an awareness among the speakers that only one form of language could be considered correct. Thus, one of the inherent characteristics of the standard language ideology, according to Milroy (2001, p. 57), is "a firm belief in correctness." Still, according to the author, this belief determines that when there are two variants or more, only one of them can be considered correct as stipulated by common sense, however discrepant the opinions are on the right and wrong.
In his study on "Language Ideologies and the Consequences of Standardization", Milroy (2001) presents a reflection on the ideology of the standard, emphasizing the character of representation of the norm and the modeling power that our idea of language possesses. The practices of common sense are full of ideology, however, whoever supports them does not realize this fact, but believes that their positioning has scientific value acreditam que seus juízos desfavoráveis sobre pessoas que usam a língua "incorretamente" são juízos puramente linguísticos sancionados por autoridades sobre língua, e essa crença é, em parte, ela mesma, uma consequência da padronização (MILROY, 2011, p. 59).
From this we can infer that the discourse of common sense does not associate this thinking about language with discrimination and social prejudice. Thus, he points out that regardless of these factors related to the speakers, those who use the language in a "wrong" way have the possibility to adhere to the correction and use the language in the way it idealizes standardization.
The standard established in common-sense beliefs ignores the socio-historical factors that pervade the subjects' language, as if the "fault of error" were the speaker, who can perfectly adhere to one of the models of good speech available.
Dealing with linguistic prejudice is a delicate task, since it consists of a subtle bias and is often ignored, seen as harmless and related to social prejudice, but with overwhelming power over the subjects who suffer it. Today, this prejudice still permeates most of the scopes of society, subjugating and excluding subjects who do not follow normative grammar, or who are very distant from it. According to Scherre (2005, p. 42), the prevailing thought is that everything that escapes grammar is wrong and that normative teaching "has the explicit purpose of banishing impoverishing forms, so-called deviant forms, forms considered unworthy of a well-spoken language and therefore considered unworthy to be used by men of good. Orlandi (2013) approaches this idea by addressing linguistic prejudice, stating that "what is norm becomes a divisor that qualifies or disqualifies citizens, giving them place or excluding them from social coexistence qualified." Thus, it is perceived that there is a language of prestige, that which in its speech comes closest to the normative grammar, which we can define as the Portuguese called cult and recognized as the standard.
For Joseph and Taylor (1990, p. 2), "Any enterprise which claims to be non-ideological and neutral, but which in fact remains covertly ideological and courageous, is the most dangerous because of this deceptive subtlety." Thus, caution is needed with those institutions that claim they do not have an ideological position, emphasizing their impartiality, since they represent a greater risk than the decided ones.
Against the institutions that conceal their ideological position, there are spheres of society that create an ideological system with the intention of exercising control and creating it through language, because the word constitutes a naturally ideological symbol, therefore, according to Brandão (2011, p. 9), it "is the privileged place for the manifestation of ideology; portrays the different ways of signifying reality, according to the voices and points of view of those who use it." In this sense, the elite that inhabits the center of the ideological system and governs its manifestations, begins to exercise its power before the other social classes. This is because language has the capacity to impose status, which is consolidated through normative grammar, considered the only source that permeates the good talk. Thus, the ideological force of the elite, exercised through language, ends up subjugating those who live on the margins of society.
In this way, it is based on the thought that those who master the normative grammar also dominate good speech and perfect writing, but this is not correct, because this conception of right and wrong was created from the differentiation of classes, as explained Câmara Jr. (1979, p. 16) In a society structured in a complex way the language of a given social group reflects it as well as its other forms of behavior. In this way, this language becomes a mark of this social status. The upper classes are aware of this fact and try to preserve the linguistic traits by which they oppose the lower classes. These traits are considered correct and there is a persistent effort to transmit them from generation to generation. This attitude grows in intensity as the impact of the lower classes becomes ever greater.
Recognizing the power of language, and its ability to exercise mastery and to guarantee status to those who carry the good form, perpetuates an imaginary in the common sense that the subjects who hold good speech are also highly schooled. Therefore, as can be seen in the comments of the internauts of our study, these subjects have the competence to occupy the high positions, to represent the people, including the figure of the president of the country, as seen in the image.
As much as the people do not use a variant that comes exactly close to the language of the norm, it is represented by whoever speaks it and is proud of it, as the statement reveals. Not knowing the language of the rules is cause for shame and embarrassment to others, as we can see in figure 2 in "It will not make us ashamed". Thus, we observe in this statement a correlation between the high degree of instruction with the standard language model. Those who have more study are therefore more educated, it is this argument that supports the correlation of senses language and schooling.
Thus, as we discuss here, language was a great instrument that contributed to the domination and dissemination of the ideological hegemony that makes legitimate the power of the classes that exercise domination. As Lucchesi reminds us (2015, p. 18), The violent social cleavage of imperial Rome was found in the cultivation of rhetoric and the refined literary circumambulations of the Latin of the patricians, as opposed to the social stigma that fell upon the crude and crude language of the plebeians, one of its most powerful symbolic representations. The formation of the modern nation states found in linguistic standardization and homogenization one of its most important pillars, especially in authoritarian and absolutist regimes like those of France, even if at the cost of atrophy and the extinction of one of the richest languages of the troubadour culture, the Provencal.
Thus, we are confronted with an ideology that rules the system and exerts influence on society and conjunctures. As a result, the imaginary of the ideal language, of the language of normatization, is fed and perpetuated in common sense, a language that assigns status to the subjects who speak it and legitimates a place of power.

Rewriting and Sense Modes
Before entering into the analytic process itself, it is essential to discuss how this sense movement is given methodologically by the enunciative relationship of rewriting. For Guimarães (2018, p. 87), rewriting modes can be by repetition, substitution, ellipse, expansion, and condensation. The meanings can be constituted by synonymy, hyperonymy, specification, definition, development, generalization, enumeration and totalization. Thus, with the enunciative operators of the mentioned rewriting, we analyze the senses of language present in the common-sense imaginary, from the comments of the internauts.
We structure our analytical process in two moments, the first one in the semantic axis of operation "A", correct Portuguese, and the semantic axis of operation "B" -President Literacy. For each axis we choose two statements that represent the most recurrent phrases related to the Portuguese language spoken by Michel Temer. We enumerate the statements as "SE1", and "SE2", corresponding to the "Enunciative Sequence" followed by the number.

a) Correct Portuguese: a representation of well-spoken
This set consists of statements that refer to the idea of language correction, in the aspect of an aesthetic evaluation of what is the "good talk" meaning by the subjects. Next, we can observe the statements and their respective occurrences of rewriting. The cutouts are print screens of the comments in the Planalto Palace Fanpage, and the subject's name and profile photo are hidden for identity preservation purposes. This axis consists of five declarative sequences (SE) starting with the phrase "correct Portuguese".
We know that the senses move, they transform, they are always others, but they also remain, they remain while the statements are others. These meanings seek to analyze and think in the light of the theory of enunciation in the perspective of Eduardo Guimarães, through the Semantics of the Event, in order to understand how to structure the commonsense imaginary on the language. SE1: "He is fluent in Portuguese I loved". The Enunciative Sequence 1 is given by the rewriting mode by substitution. Since knowing what "He" means involves knowing that "He" rewrites, by replacement, President. "He" makes sense because earlier it is otherwise designated in the statements, in this case, President Michel Temer, thus, the meaning of "He" is in "President." The meaning, according to the categorizations of Guimarães (2018, p. 87), of this rewriting is of definition, because "fluent in Portuguese" defines / characterizes "He" / president. This sense of rewriting establishes a relationship of definition between rewriting and rewriting, that is, from the meanings that circulate in this Analytical Axis, "He is fluent in Portuguese" is the rewriting of "The President speaks the correct Portuguese." However, pointing out that with each rewriting there are senses that are maintained and other senses that comes to signify with what is already placed in the event of enunciation.
The movement between "fluent in Portuguese" in relation to the sense of "correct Portuguese" presents a mistaken understanding in the conceptual perspective. Orlandi (1988), Eixo de sentido "Português correto" SE1 SE2 when theoretically approaching the imaginary language and the fluent language, deals with the specificities of what is to be fluent, that is, the language that is in motion, detached from the rules and norms imposed by the process of grammarization and the institution of linguistic instruments, because fluent language is prior to all this, it is the mother tongue of subjects routinely spoken in human / social groupings. In this sense, every subject is fluent in his mother tongue, since he perfectly knows how to use it to communicate, and fluency, in this perspective, is not related to rule of norms or a certain variety of speech. Scherre (2005) states that the mother tongue is the first language of the subject, acquired in the community with society, without formal education, and without the presence of the school, and therefore there is no mother tongue teaching. Also, according to the author In terms of grammar, what is normally taught in school is the normative grammar of the language of a community and not the language of that community. So, when a native speaker of a language makes explicit the secular sense inculcated that he cannot speak his own language, he is indeed confusing his language with the normative grammar of part of his language (p.138).
In this way, we perceive that the conflict that arises in the common-sense imaginary, including the students, stems from the fact that most of the time normative grammar is taught in schools as if it were teaching the mother tongue. Thus, from an early age, a misconception about language has spread, and it continues to be strengthened by the contribution of the media and common consolidated discourse in the social sphere.
The SE2 repeats the sense of "correct Portuguese" by means of a rewriting in which the syntagma changes, but the sense remains. The mode of rewriting is by repetition, here seen as "our old and good Portuguese," and the meaning is by generalization, by adopting the pronoun "our", as if it were indeed the Portuguese of all. To repeat is to redemptive, and this movement occurs along the axes, in which something always repeats itself, but there is also the new, the other, which is established concomitantly.
There is a sense that remains, since "correct Portuguese" is for "old and good Portuguese", and this movement subtly touches the synonymy, as if both syntagmata are synonymous. And there is an effect of generalization, in "our", referring to the speaker of the Portuguese utterance, to the Portuguese of the president, and who more if you wish, because ours is equivalent to the junction of 'I-you', or several 'your', that is, the meaning is that the Portuguese of the president is the same as that of the speaker of the utterance and of every subject that is signified in 'ours'. This denotes an imaginary of one language, homogeneous, equal to and for all, disregarding the vivacity of the language and its constant transformation as a result of its nature -always in movement.
Quoting the nostalgia of "old and good Portuguese" refers to the idea that Portuguese spoken by the previous presidents, who spoke the same Portuguese language, but not "old and good Portuguese". And in this is the imaginary again that all speak, or should, speak the same variety of language. This imaginary is crossed by the purist thought, the one that purports to maintain the purity of the forms, so that in time they are not 'deteriorated'. Faraco (2016) brings an approach on purism, explaining its implications Purism, whatever it may be (ethnic, religious, political-ideological, linguistic), has a common background: the refusal of the other, of the different, of the different. Now it is the diversity that makes the greatness of human life and culture. Thus, any attempt to define a common ground in the midst of diversity and change cannot be done by taking the erasure or silencing of the other, of diversity, of difference (p. 2015).
Purism is opposed to the natural movement that is established within institutions over time, because not accepting the changes and transformations means to reject and silence everything that changes, adapting and adapting to new realities. Moita Lopes (2013) reports on the constant changes that occur in all social spheres and the language is not exempt from them, making it necessary to reflect on what is currently understood by language.
If it is a fact that the societies in which we live are being rapidly altered in a world of flows, in which people, texts and languages are increasingly moving between the so-called national borders and those in cybernetic communication networks, it is necessary to rethink what we have called Portuguese (p. 19).
The purist discourse that maintains and nourishes within the common sense, and defends the "old and good Portuguese", has reason to exist, and from the perspective of historicity its enunciative semantic event is in the middle of the eighteenth century, as explained by Faraco (2016, p. 210).
The motto of purist discourse was always the use of so-called classical authors of language -in principle, only what was in the classics was correct. This parameter, constituted by the thought of the eighteenth century, had been consolidated by Candido Lusitano, an arcade pseudonym of Francisco José Freire [2] (1719-1773).
The purist discourse was forged in the eighteenth century and widely circulated from the mid-nineteenth century until the 1920s, but gradually lost its breath in Brazil. This was because it was full of internal contradictions and, thus, could not conform to the inescapable characteristics of the fluid language.
Even with the perception of the lack of coherence for its consolidation as fact / truth, the belief in purism had its bases strengthened throughout history by normative current grammar. And this has developed an imaginary, ideologically crossed, linguistic homogeneity, as Lucchesi (2015) points out.
From a broader perspective, concerning the role that linguistic normalization plays in the construction of ideological hegemony in society as a whole, a socio-historical analysis refers to the social and ideological contexts that have sustained the conservation of this grammatical paradigm since the end of the century XIX. [...] And grammatical purism has become a powerful instrument of ideological legitimation (p. 130).
Although the purist discourse has remained so long, it remains in the imagination of many speakers of the Portuguese language in Brazil, since it was based on the language of the classical writers; and today, fueled by the media and some perspectives of grammarians, this imaginary is repeated in the thinking of common sense, based purely and simply on the opposition "Portuguese correct" and "Portuguese wrong" -in this case, the wrong are all varieties that do not fit into the pattern or idea of pattern that is equivalent to what one has as "correct." Moita Lopes (2013, p. 119) discusses in his study "How and why to theorize Portuguese: communicative resource in porous societies and in hybrid times of cultural globalization", how important is to question this ideology that values the homogeneity of the language, mainly to reflect on the other varieties that are often seen as irrelevant and incorrect. "By challenging the ideal of a pure language by focusing on language, this theoretical position helps to open space for problematizing the 'voices from below', which have traditionally been and are kept crystallized by such an ideal in its inferiority." Thus, SE2 of Axis 1 brings the meaning of "old and good Portuguese", which really means in its historicity, and even perpetuates even today in an imaginary widespread and nourished by common sense. In the eighteenth century the old and good Portuguese was that of the traditional writers, not 'corrupted' by the customs of the colony; today, it is the one that dignifies the president to his post and that does not consider the recognition of the varieties of the language as also genuine forms, molded by time and use,

b) Literate President: the level of instruction as determinant of the ideal language
This axis of statements is formed by a clipping of comments that refer to literacy and schooling, constituting meanings around the educational formation of the subject as a criterion that reflects in his spoken language. Next, we can observe the Enunciative Sequences.
The enunciative sequences produce meanings related to the literacy of the subject as an essential quality for a correct speech, relating the degree of schooling with the level of mastery of the Portuguese language. The statement that brings the phrase of greatest recurrence and symbolizes this Axis is "I knew that Brazil would have a literate President!". In each SE there is the crossing of an imaginary language, ideologically constituted within the thought of common sense, and materialized in the statements. This is the second Axis of meaning located in our corpus, determined from the recurrence of the phrases referring to the two great enunciative perspectives related to language. From this, our analytical movements are based on the Theory of Enunciation, more specifically, on the precepts of Semantics of the Event, with the analytical approach presented by Guimarães (2018), which holds the analysis centered on the semantic plane. SE1: "At least now we have a president who is literate and does not destroy the Portuguese language".
Based on the rewriting relationship modes, SE1 presents the repetition rewriting in the phrase "a president who is literate", and the meaning is given by specification, stating that "it does not destroy the Portuguese language." The SE repeats that the president is literate, and clarifies that being literate does not destroy the Portuguese language. Therefore, those who are not literate destroy the language.
The meaning of the statement elicits institutionalized knowledge (schooling) with the mastery of the Portuguese language, more specifically speaking, as if the first factor were incident on the second, and vice versa. If the subject is literate he does not destroy the Portuguese language, or if the subject "does not destroy the language" it is because he is literate. Already the adverb "now" refers, historically, to an earlier period in which President Lula and President Dilma were considered "language destroyers", and by the semantics of SE1, could not be considered literate. We observe literacy functioning as synonymous with the domain of the standard language norm.

SE1 SE2
There is a detail in the speech of President Michel Temer that provokes the commonsense language imaginary, which immediately associates "good talk" with the level of education, and Scherre (2005) specifies this relation of meanings.
The basic difference between Brazilians and Portuguese, and among Brazilians who are more schooled and less educated, especially in speech, is in the number of agreements that are no longer made, although we try in every way to pass to our minds and our feelings that Brazilians, influenced by African languages, have restructured (or, some would say, prejudiced, mutilated) European Portuguese. We changed and changed them. He changed Portuguese in Brazil and changed Portuguese in Europe, a fact common in any language that suffers the action of time (p. 131).
The concordances constitute one of the characteristics in the speech of the president that awakens the attention of the subjects, in addition to them, is the cultivated and farfetched vocabulary, proper of the legal scope in which Temer is inserted. However, at once the mastery of the standard-culture norm is associated with literacy, but of what literacy do these speakers speak? For we know that this relation is equivocal, since not every literate subject speaks this "correct Portuguese" advocated by common sense, and not all illiterate "destroy the language", because there is no direct relation between one fact and another.
Moreover, the widespread imaginary totally ignores the natural changes of language that occur over time, as well as, does not understand that there are intrinsic differences to the language in the act of speaking and writing that make these two political acts are not homogeneous. The effort to erase variations in language and bring it to the ideal of homogeneity is not a current utopia, since according to Faraco (2012, p. 39) "Written culture, associated with social power, has also triggered, throughout history, a highly unifying process that aimed at and aims at a relative linguistic stabilization, seeking to neutralize variation and control change." The senses of the SE1 move through the imaginary that there is indeed this ideal language, which is the language spoken by the president, and those who speak in this way are the 'preservers' of the language and literate subjects, and who does not have his speech in the consonances of this Portuguese is guilty for "destroying" the language. As well as, literacy resulting in good Portuguese is a factor that qualifies the subject, stepping up his status, in this case, the country's president.
SE2: "The guy studied speaks well, very good." Enunciative Sequence 2, of Axis 2, rewrites the syntagma by the substitution mode, and sense of definition. Understanding what "the learned guy" means requires rewriting, by definition, "literate president." The re-written syntagma works at the same time as a synonym, in which the literate president equals the guy studied, and is defined by "speak well". That is, the literate president is not only a guy studied but also / even "speaks well", and that is "very good".
Because the president is studied, he speaks well; in this perspective, a relation of the spoken language with the degree of study is indicated, in which the imaginary consists in defending that the schooling is determinant of the variety of language that the subject will speak. That is, every subject who possesses a good oratory and command of the Portuguese language in his oral modality is an educated subject.
We believe that literacy is replaced here by studied, and thus it moves new senses, in addition to the initial degree of schooling that is so referred to literacy, because there is now a "studied face", where the voice of the participle denotes a finished action, that is , he has already completed his studies, and his "good talk" is as a result. Faraco (2016, p. 213) states that "The tone of debate in Brazil (for more than a century) is always the same: Brazilians are reproached for not caring for their language and for supposedly not being able to speak and write 'correctly'", which justifies this imaginary that relates so closely spoken language with written language to the degree of study.
With this, it is evident that the path to be traveled in search of understanding and respect for linguistic heterogeneity is still long, with the knowledge that the process of linguistic change is historical. Only in this way will it become possible, gradually and slowly, to supplant those language imaginaries rooted in common sense. In this perspective, Faraco (2016, p. 215) states that, "in teaching and social practices, it is indispensable, first and foremost, to respect all sociolinguistic expressions, fighting all the prejudices and all the symbolic violence that having the tongue as a pretext".
In the consolidated imaginary, according to SE2, the senses move in only one direction, that the subject who is highly educated will have satisfactory mastery over the spoken language. However, there are senses that still need to be touched, that not all subjects that dominate good oratory are "studied", and not everyone who is educated has the ability to develop good speech.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
According to , traditionally the studies of sayings on the language have been stopped in investigating the discourse of grammarians, literati, politicians, that is, only people of influence in the society. From this, this research aims to provide another perspective of the "sayings on", through common sense statements, to understand which imaginary and ideology constitute the thought of language.
The theoretical perspective adopted for the development of the work is that of Enunciation, initially proposed by Benveniste, and reformulated, based on the precepts of Guimarães (2002), through Semantics of the Event. This theoretical bias advocates that statements are unrepeatable, since they occur in a unique time and space, and as a result, the senses are always others, however much the text is the same. We understand that ideology and imaginary are two important notions for the construction of the senses, which justifies our theoretical-conceptual positioning when adopting these concepts and developing them throughout the research.
Still, we consider it essential to theorize the notions of mother tongue, national and official language, monolinguism, nationalism and purism, political movements of norm and enunciation. As well, we think of virtual space as a new enunciative space, seeking to understand the tessituras of this subject that enunciates in this environment.
The analytical movements were carried out through the process of rewriting (GUIMARÃES, 2018), which consists of a procedure of semantic operation, in which one observes the way in which the senses are rewritten verbatim, meaning something else. In order to proceed with the analysis, we first observe the entire corpus of comments of the internauts in the official fanpage of the Planalto Palace, referring to the Portuguese spoken by Michel Temer in his first statement abroad as president.
The common-sense perspective synthesizes the place from which these comments are being constructed; the enunciators who produce the statements, are the Internet users, and they enter the place of non-identification because it is not possible to identify exactly who these subjects are and which places they occupy socially. Internet users put themselves in the perspective of meaning what language is to them.
We identify two semantic functioning axes represented in the most recurrent nominal forms, being "Portuguese correct" and "literate president". In each axis, we analyze the way and the senses of the rewritings of the referred nominal forms. The corpus of analysis consists of two statements in each axis of semantic operation. From this, it was possible to understand the language imaginary that permeates the perspective of common sense.
Among the senses observed, we perceive how much still is confused in the discourse of common sense the written and spoken use of the language, in which the correction and the norm are attributed to the oral modality. Thus, a conflict arises between the linguistic plane and the enunciative plane, in which "good talk" is idealized and functions as a criterion that qualifies the subject to occupy the social spaces of power and visibility. The statements present a point of view of an imaginary language, and even if it is perceived that the speaker does not use the same language that he defends. The senses, in their predominance, are directed to the correction of language and schooling, believing that subjects instructed in the traditional system of teaching have mastery over the standard language.
From this we must also understand the socio-historical reality and understand it as a multiple set of varieties that will consecutively reflect in the language in their daily practice. This implies understanding the relationship of language with the social groups that use it and also overcoming linguistic prejudices.
It is the language imaginaries that cooperate to consolidate a linguistic ideology, based on the idea of purism, monolinguism and homogeneity. This is in a country that does not know about the existence of the approximately 300 languages, among allochthonous and autochthonous, that coexist with Portuguese in national soil (GUIMARÃES, 2005).
Thus, we can infer that the language imaginary and the ideology generate a false perception of the linguistic reality, and common sense undoubtedly underlies it.
Knowing the senses of language in the perspective of common sense presents us with a new panorama of the speeches about the language studied until then, making it possible to understand the statements disseminated in the society that find strong media and popular support, but that have no scientific support.