Source: http://www.periodicos.letras.ufmg.br/index.php/relin/article/view/14178
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 15:00:49+00:00

Document:
Resumo: O objetivo deste trabalho é examinar as propriedades das construções do português brasileiro com a expressão capaz, como Capaz que a Maria viajou. Essas construções podem ter significados diferentes, dependendo do padrão de entoação a elas associado. Com uma entoação plana, capaz é interpretado como um modal epistêmico, enquanto com a acentuação em capaz, tal como falado na região sul do Brasil, essa expressão passa a ser interpretada como um marcador pragmático, expressando surpresa ou o ponto de vista contrário do falante. A hipótese defendida no trabalho é a de que essas leituras estão associadas a duas estruturas sintáticas distintas: as sentenças com capaz epistêmico são bioracionais, ao passo que as sentenças em que capaz funciona como marcador pragmático são mono-oracionais. Com base nas propostas de Speas e Tenny (2003) e de Hill (2007, 2014) acerca da existência de uma projeção associada ao ato de fala (denominada Speech Act Phrase – SAP) e visível para a computação sintática, propomos que capaz como um marcador pragmático é uma expressão que sofreu um processo de mudança linguística denominado pragmaticalização (DOSTIE, 2004) e, em consequência dessa mudança, é inserido diretamente no núcleo de SAP, projeção que faz a interface da sintaxe com a pragmática conversacional.
Palavras-chave: modalidade epistêmica; marcador pragmático; interface sintaxe-pragmática.
Abstract: The main aim of this paper is to examine the properties of Brazilian Portuguese constructions involving the expression capaz ‘capable’ (Capaz que a Maria viajou, literally ‘capable that Maria travelled’) which can have different meanings depending on the intonation pattern associated to it. With a flat intonation, capaz can be an epistemic modal; with an intonation stressing capaz, as spoken in Southern Brazil, it can be a pragmatic marker, expressing the speaker negative point of view or the speaker’s surprise. The hypothesis defended here is that these readings are related to two different structures. Constructions with epistemic capaz are treated as biclausal structures, whereas constructions with capaz functioning as a pragmatic marker are analyzed as monoclausal structures. Based on Speas and Tenny (2003) and Hill (2007, 2014), who assume the existence of a Speech Act Phrase (SAP), a projection associated with the speech act and visible for the syntactic computation, we propose that when it acts as a pragmatic marker, capaz is an expression that undergoes a process of linguistic change called pragmaticalization (DOSTIE, 2004) and, as a consequence, is externally merged into the head of SAP, a projection at the interface of syntax with conversational pragmatics.
Keywords: epistemic modality; pragmatic marker; syntax-pragmatics interface.
modalidade epistêmica; marcador pragmático; interface sintaxe-pragmática; epistemic modality; pragmatic marker; syntax-pragmatics interface.
AIKHENVALD, A. Y. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, [S.l.], v. 16, n. 3, p. 435-485, 2012.
BAKER, M. On the nature of the antiagreement effect: evidence from wh-in-situ in Ibibio. Linguistic Inquiry, [S.l.], v. 39, n. 4, p. 615-632, 2008.
CASTROVIEJO, E.; OLTRA-MASSUET, I. What does be capable tell us about capacities? An answer from Romance. In: MARTIN, F., PITTEROFF, M.; PROSS, T. (Ed.). Morphological, Syntactic, and Semantic Aspects of Dispositions. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart, 2016b. p. 30-51.
CORR, A. V. Ibero-Romance and the Syntax of the Utterance. 2016. 294 f. Tese (Doutorado em Linguística) – Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge, 2016.
CRUSCHINA, S. The expression of evidentiality and epistemicity: Cases of grammaticalization in Italian and Sicilian. Probus, [S.l.], v. 27, n. 1, p. 1-31, 2015.
DOSTIE, G. Pragmaticalisation et Marqueurs Discursifs: Analyse sémantique et traitement lexicographique. Bruxelas: De Boeck/Duculot, 2004.
FRASER, B. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, [S.l.], v. 6, n. 2, 167-190, 1996.
GIORGI, A. About the Speaker: Towards a syntax of indexicality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
GRÁNDEZ ÁVILA, M. A Functional Approach to the Subjectification of Facultative Meaning: The case of capaz in American Spanish. 2010. 37f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Linguística) – Department of Linguistics, University of Amsterdam, 2010.
HILL, V. Vocatives and the pragmatics-syntax interface. Lingua, [S.l.], v. 117, n. 2, p. 2077-2105, 2007.
HILL, V. Vocatives: How syntax meets with pragmatics. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2014.
LEHMANN, C. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. 3. ed. Berlim: Language Science Press, 2015.
MIYAGAWA, S. Agreement Beyond Phi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017.
RIZZI, L. Notes on Cartography and further explanation. Probus, [S.l.], v. 25, n. 1, p. 197-226, 2013.
RIZZI, L.; CINQUE, G. Functional categories and syntactic theory. Annual Review of Linguistics, [S.l.], v. 2, n. 1, p. 139-163, 2016.
SPEAS, M. Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic roles. Lingua, [S.l.], v. 114, n. 3, p. 255-276, 2004.
TRAUGOTT, E. C. On regularity in semantic change. Journal of Literary Semantics, [S.l.], v. 14, n. 3, p. 155-173, 1985.
TRAUGOTT, E. C. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, [S.l.], v. 65, n. 1, p. 31-55, 1989.
VINCENT, D. The journey of non-standard discourse markers in Quebec French: Networks based on exemplification. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, [S.l.], v. 6, n. 2, p. 188-210, 2005.
WILTSCHKO, M. Response particles beyond answering. In: BAILEY, L.; SHEEHAN, M. (Ed.). Order and Structure in Syntax I: Word order and syntactic structure. Berlim: Language Science Press, 2018. p. 241-279.
ZU, Vera. Probing for conversation participants: the case of Jingpo. In: APARICIO TERRASA, H.; FRANICH, K.; FLINN, G.; PIETRASZKO, A.; VARDOMSKAYA, T. (Ed.). Proceedings of the 49th annual regional meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 2015. p. 379-389.
ZU, V. Discourse Participants and the Structural Representation of the Context. 2018. 279 f. Tese (Doutorado em Linguística) – Department of Linguistics, New York University, 2018.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.