The argument structure of deverbal nouns in Brazilian Portuguese

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In (37a), the preposition de ‘of’ establishes a modifying relation with the nominal head; as such it must be analyzed as a lexical preposition and the possession relationship specifies the location of the building. In (37b), on the other hand, de ‘of’ establishes a link between the nominal head and its inherited argument; as such it will be analyzed as a grammatical preposition. This distinction between grammatical and lexical prepositions also seems to apply to the prepositions por ‘by’, em ‘in’ and com ‘with’ in examples (40a-b) and (41a-b), where the correlation between grammatical preposition for syntactic relations and lexical preposition for modifying relations can be clearly perceived. (40)a a destru-ição d-a cidade [por epidemia] the.F destroy-NMLZ of-the.F city [by epidemic] ‘destruction of the city [ by epidemic ]’ b a destru-ição d-a cidade por tropa-s host-is the.F destroy-NMLZ of-the.F city by troop-PL hostile-PL [n-o ano passad-o] [in-the.M year last-M] ‘the destruction of the city by hostile troops [in the last year]’ (41)a o livro [com capa vermelh-a] the.M book [with cover red-F] ‘the book [ with red cover ]’ b a preocup-ação de Maria com José the.F concern-NMLZ of Maria with José ‘the concern of Maria with José’ Modifiers in the nominal domain, indicated by brackets in examples (40) and (41), can express cause (40a), time (40b) or reference specification (41a); all these modifiers contain information that is not required by the nominal head, whereas information contained by the NPs introduced by por ‘by’ (40b) and com ‘with’(41b) is required by the nominal head as part of its argument structure. Note that this approach does not directly affect the interesting correlation between gradual deverbalization and valency reduction described by Mackenzie (1996). This correlation can also be accounted for in terms of Dik’s PFA (1985; 1997b). At the more advanced stages of the nominalization process, the grammatical relation markings (word order, subject and object agreement and case) are taken over by other devices, such as the use of prepositions, genitive, possessive pronouns and adjectives, that is, the formal categories that normally follow the prototypical noun, as in (5a-d), rewritten here as (42a-d) for convenience, but with a different interpretation from Mackenzie’s. (42)a That my horse (clausal Arg1) won the race (sentential Arg2) came as a great surprise. (finite verb) b My horse (sentential Arg1) winning the race (sentential Arg2) came as a great surprise. (gerund) c My horse’s (genitive Arg1) winning the race (sentential Arg2) came as a great surprise. (gerundgenitive) d My horse’s (genitive Arg1) winning of the race (possessor phrase Arg2) came as a great surprise. (productive nominalization) This analysis preserves the idea that there is a gradual process of verbal decategorization; this process, however, does not necessarily mean valency reduction. Instead, it is reflected in the different kinds of grammatical relation markings used in 23
(42a-d). As the verbal predicate gradually gains nominal status, the clausal markings (agreement, word order and the like) give way to prepositional marking or some other device, like adjectival modification or the use of possessive pronouns which are perfectly appropriate to follow a nominal head. 5. A proposal for the analysis of the data Given that my own interpretation of the data supports the valency preservation hypothesis, it will be clear that I would like to propose an analysis in which derived and non-derived nouns must already be selected from the lexicon with their own valency structure. Pragmatic and semantic motivations trigger the expression form at the Structural Level. As a first step in this analysis we need to consider the way deverbal nouns enter into the Formulation from lexical organization. García Velasco & Hengeveld (2002) raise some problems that the notion of predicate frame poses with respect to standards of adequacy and the solution they propose is to split up predicate frames into predicates and frames by assigning the term predication frame for frame and lexeme for predicate. According to them, “the term predicate then becomes available for lexemes used as predicates in particular syntactic contexts. Predication frames specify the (underlying) configurations in which lexemes may occur” (García Velasco & Hengeveld 2002: 107). Following these notions of predication frames and lexemes as separate theoretical units, I claim that noun lexemes combine with the same predication frame as the verb lexemes from which they are derived only if they are predicates, that is, deverbal nouns representing second-order entities such as construção ‘construction’ in (37b) above mentioned; when lexemes represent first-order entities, such as construção ‘construction’ in (37a), they should be really considered avalent because they are not predicates. By way of illustration, consider the examples in (43a-b) and their respective predication frames in (44a-b). The quantitative valency is variable according to the nature of the lexeme chosen from the lexicon, which allows the expression of (43-b) in a similar way to that of the corresponding verbal predicate: (43)a A manifest-ação d-o-s grevista-s The.F demonstrate-NMLZ of-the.M-PL striker-PL caus-ou engarraf-amento. cause-IND.PRF.3SG traffic.jam-NMLZ ‘The demonstration of the strikers caused some traffic jam.’ b. A destru-ição de Bagdá pel-o exército americano the.F destroy-NMLZ of Baghdad by-the.M army american caus-ou a morte de civ-is. cause-IND.PRF.3SG the.F death of civilian-PL ‘The destruction of Baghdad by the American Army caused the deaths of civilians.’ (44)a. (R1 [ T R1 ] (R1)) (e1: [(f1: ♦ (f1:)) (x1)Proc) ] (e1 )) 24
Page 1 and 2: web papers in functional grammar wp
Page 3 and 4: addition, she considers some predic
Page 5 and 6: The drawback is that the adjustment
Page 7 and 8: the functionality of the nominaliza
Page 9 and 10: These results appear to be favourab
Page 11 and 12: grammar, inserting de ‘of’ into
Page 13 and 14: monovalent nouns. If there are two
Page 15 and 16: (22) dentro d-o aument-o de vencime
Page 17 and 18: o-s cort-e-s que eles d-ão n-a-s t
Page 19 and 20: It is obvious that this type of non
Page 21 and 22: Thus, prototypical nouns introduce
Page 23: more readily affected by the transc
Page 27 and 28: Frames, Lexemes, Primary Operators
Page 29 and 30: followed in (46a) and (47a). In (48
Page 31 and 32: d-a minh-a mão... e est-a idéia d
Page 33 and 34: Notes 1. I am very grateful to J. L
Page 35: Keizer, E. (2004b). Term structure

The argument structure of deverbal nouns in Brazilian Portuguese

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?