Phrase Structure of Brazilian Sign Language - Ronice.cce.prof.ufsc.br

(iii) There is no doubt about the interpretation of SVO sentences with ‘reversible’<br />
arguments, as there is with OSV and SOV word orders; however, the<br />
sentences containing such reversible arguments are considered unacceptable<br />
with transitive verbs because both arguments are interpreted as subject, and<br />
the object is eliminated (sentences in (4)) 4 . This is not the case with optional<br />
transitive verbs, since the sentences with ‘reversible’ arguments are<br />
ambiguous (sentences in (5));<br />
(4) a) _______ hn<br />
JOHN LIKE MARY (SVO)<br />
John likes Mary.<br />
b) _____________hn<br />
*JOHN MARY LIKE (OSV)<br />
(5) a) ____________hn<br />
LION RABBIT EAT<br />
Possible interpretations:<br />
(i) ∃x & ∃y (x is LION & y is RABBIT), x & y eat something – SV(O)<br />
(ii) ∃x (x is LION & y is RABBIT), x eats y - SOV<br />
b) ________hn<br />
RABBIT LION EAT<br />
Possible interpretations:<br />
(i) ∃x & ∃y (x is RABBIT & y is LION), x & y eat something – SV(O)<br />
(ii) ∃y (y is LION & x is RABBIT), y eats x - OSV<br />
Because these interpretations are possible, we exclude the possibility of a syntactic<br />
restriction on OSV and SOV word orders concerning reversible and non-reversible<br />
arguments. OSV and SOV word orders seem to be generated by movement from a<br />
syntactic point of view. The unacceptability of (4b) seems to be a result of the fact<br />
that LIKE is a transitive verb and, for semantic reasons, the only interpretation<br />
available is JOHN and MARY as subjects of the sentence; these sentences are<br />
excluded because of their lack of object. This is not the case with ‘non-reversible’<br />
arguments in which the semantic interpretation of grammatical relations is plausible<br />
such as in (5).<br />
(iv) The word orders OSV and SOV with reversible arguments in sentences with<br />
plain verbs need an auxiliary:<br />
(6) a) ___________eg _________________eg ___hn<br />
IX JOHNa IX MARYb aAUXb LIKE<br />
John likes Mary (aAUXb)<br />
b) __________eg ___________eg _____eg ___hn<br />
4 Fischer (1975) analyzed analogous examples in ASL to (4b) and (5) in LSB, as ungrammatical,<br />
because the object and the subject are ‘reversible’. JOHN and MARY are reversible because each one<br />
can be the subject or the object of the sentence, while JOHN and SOCCER are not in a sentence like<br />
JOHN LIKE SOCCER. She observed that if the object and the subject are non-reversible, changes in<br />
order can occur.<br />
3