O objetivo desta tese é discutir uma mudança diacrônica na introdução dos argumentos indiretos das sentenças ditransitivas do português brasileiro (PB). Desde o século XIX, o PB iniciou uma reanálise das estratégias possíveis para a introdução de seus objetos indiretos (OI), generalizando o uso da preposição lexical para em detrimento da preposição a, nos contextos de verbos ditransitivos de movimento, transferência e criação dar, enviar, preparar, respectivamente. Ao mesmo tempo em que essa mudança ocorreu, a expressão morfológica do argumento dativo representada pelo clítico dativo de terceira pessoa lhe(s) também foi substituída por outras estratégias, tais como objetos pronominais para / a ele(s)/ ela(s) (cf. Gomes, 2003; Freire, 2005; Torres Morais & Berlinck, 2006, 2007; Torres Morais & Salles 2010). Com o intuito de apresentar uma análise abrangente desse processo de mudança histórica no PB, analisei um corpus jornalístico composto por 223 primeiras capas da Folha de São Paulo escritas entre as décadas de 1920 e 2010, recolhidas do livro 90 anos de história nas capas mais importantes da Folha. Dessa forma, o PB não possui mais a expressão de caso dativo, nem através da preposição funcional a, nem do clítico dativo lhe(s), portanto assumo nesta tese que, diferentemente do PE, a introdução dos argumentos indiretos em PB não pode ser feita através de núcleos aplicativos. Assim sendo, o PB passou de um tipo de língua que apresentava evidência de Caso dativo para uma variante na qual apenas Caso oblíquo é atribuído ao OI por meio de preposições transitivas lexicais. Desse modo, proponho que os argumentos indiretos em PB são introduzidos por uma projeção pP (cf. Svenonius 2003, 2004, 2007; Wood 2012). / The aim of this paper is to discuss a diachronic change in the introduction of indirect arguments in Brazilian Portuguese (BP). Since the 19th century, BP has initiated a reanalysis of the possible strategies to head indirect objects (IO) by generalizing the use of the full preposition para to instead of the preposition a in ditransitive sentences with verbs of movement, transfer and creation as dar give, enviar send and preparar prepare, respectively. Alongside with the substitution of the prepositions stated above, the morphological notation of the dative argument - represented by the third person clitic lhe(s) has also been replaced by other strategies, such as 3rd person pronouns preceded by para - para ele(s)/ ela(s) to him/ her/ them (cf. Gomes, 2003; Freire,2005; Torres Morais & Berlinck, 2006, 2007; Torres Morais & Salles 2010). Hence, in order to make a more thorough analysis of this historical change in BP, I analyzed a corpus of first pages from a Brazilian newspaper, Folha de São Paulo collected in the monograph 90 anos de história nas capas mais importantes da Folha (90 years of History through the most important cover pages of Folha), which spans the 20th century with 223 covers from 1920 to 2010. Hence, as BP cannot express the dative case anymore, nor via a functional preposition, nor by its morphologic counterpart (the dative clitic lhe), it has also lost the possibility of introducing dative elements in its argument structure by an applicative head. Thus, BP has shifted from a type of language which has evidence for Case, as EP, to one where Case is assigned via lexical prepositions. Consequently, I assume that the indirect arguments in BP are always headed by a lexical preposition and are introduced in the argument structure via a p head (cf. Svenonius 2003, 2004, 2007 and Wood 2012).

The present thesis addresses the issue as to why the double object construction (e.g., John gave Mary a book) seems to appear in certain languages but not in others. This construction has received much attention in past research in formal linguistics and has played a central role in developing our understanding of the internal structure of the VP. Previous studies generally define the construction with respect to relative linear order of the object complements of the verb and the lack of morphological markings on these objects. We show that these properties are not inherent to the construction and that consequently, the construction exists in a wider variety of languages than previously assumed, particularly French. Along the lines of Goldberg (1995, 2006), we develop a universal semantic definition of the construction, which may be used as a diagnostic to test, systematically and categorically, its presence across languages. In particular, we identify the double object construction in French as, for example, Jean a donné le livre à Marie. We then explain the cross-linguistic structural differences with a Case-driven approach. Specifically, we argue that the inherent dative Case, present in French but not in English, is responsible for the structural differences recognized between the languages. By adopting a minimalist derivation of argument structure (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2004) and the applicative analysis (Pylkkänen 2002), we are able to determine the syntax of the construction, while eliminating the redundancies and limitations of previous accounts. We present certain resulting predictions related to the grammar, including a generalisation of Case-checking by the low applicative phrase, a syntactic position related to the direct object properties, and universal properties of the construction itself. In all, this thesis offers empirical evidence for the universality of the double object construction and Case-driven syntactic derivation.

The present thesis addresses the issue as to why the double object construction (e.g., John gave Mary a book) seems to appear in certain languages but not in others. This construction has received much attention in past research in formal linguistics and has played a central role in developing our understanding of the internal structure of the VP. Previous studies generally define the construction with respect to relative linear order of the object complements of the verb and the lack of morphological markings on these objects. We show that these properties are not inherent to the construction and that consequently, the construction exists in a wider variety of languages than previously assumed, particularly French. Along the lines of Goldberg (1995, 2006), we develop a universal semantic definition of the construction, which may be used as a diagnostic to test, systematically and categorically, its presence across languages. In particular, we identify the double object construction in French as, for example, Jean a donné le livre à Marie. We then explain the cross-linguistic structural differences with a Case-driven approach. Specifically, we argue that the inherent dative Case, present in French but not in English, is responsible for the structural differences recognized between the languages. By adopting a minimalist derivation of argument structure (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2004) and the applicative analysis (Pylkkänen 2002), we are able to determine the syntax of the construction, while eliminating the redundancies and limitations of previous accounts. We present certain resulting predictions related to the grammar, including a generalisation of Case-checking by the low applicative phrase, a syntactic position related to the direct object properties, and universal properties of the construction itself. In all, this thesis offers empirical evidence for the universality of the double object construction and Case-driven syntactic derivation.

O objetivo desta tese é discutir uma mudança diacrônica na introdução dos argumentos indiretos das sentenças ditransitivas do português brasileiro (PB). Desde o século XIX, o PB iniciou uma reanálise das estratégias possíveis para a introdução de seus objetos indiretos (OI), generalizando o uso da preposição lexical para em detrimento da preposição a, nos contextos de verbos ditransitivos de movimento, transferência e criação dar, enviar, preparar, respectivamente. Ao mesmo tempo em que essa mudança ocorreu, a expressão morfológica do argumento dativo representada pelo clítico dativo de terceira pessoa lhe(s) também foi substituída por outras estratégias, tais como objetos pronominais para / a ele(s)/ ela(s) (cf. Gomes, 2003; Freire, 2005; Torres Morais & Berlinck, 2006, 2007; Torres Morais & Salles 2010). Com o intuito de apresentar uma análise abrangente desse processo de mudança histórica no PB, analisei um corpus jornalístico composto por 223 primeiras capas da Folha de São Paulo escritas entre as décadas de 1920 e 2010, recolhidas do livro 90 anos de história nas capas mais importantes da Folha. Dessa forma, o PB não possui mais a expressão de caso dativo, nem através da preposição funcional a, nem do clítico dativo lhe(s), portanto assumo nesta tese que, diferentemente do PE, a introdução dos argumentos indiretos em PB não pode ser feita através de núcleos aplicativos. Assim sendo, o PB passou de um tipo de língua que apresentava evidência de Caso dativo para uma variante na qual apenas Caso oblíquo é atribuído ao OI por meio de preposições transitivas lexicais. Desse modo, proponho que os argumentos indiretos em PB são introduzidos por uma projeção pP (cf. Svenonius 2003, 2004, 2007; Wood 2012). / The aim of this paper is to discuss a diachronic change in the introduction of indirect arguments in Brazilian Portuguese (BP). Since the 19th century, BP has initiated a reanalysis of the possible strategies to head indirect objects (IO) by generalizing the use of the full preposition para to instead of the preposition a in ditransitive sentences with verbs of movement, transfer and creation as dar give, enviar send and preparar prepare, respectively. Alongside with the substitution of the prepositions stated above, the morphological notation of the dative argument - represented by the third person clitic lhe(s) has also been replaced by other strategies, such as 3rd person pronouns preceded by para - para ele(s)/ ela(s) to him/ her/ them (cf. Gomes, 2003; Freire,2005; Torres Morais & Berlinck, 2006, 2007; Torres Morais & Salles 2010). Hence, in order to make a more thorough analysis of this historical change in BP, I analyzed a corpus of first pages from a Brazilian newspaper, Folha de São Paulo collected in the monograph 90 anos de história nas capas mais importantes da Folha (90 years of History through the most important cover pages of Folha), which spans the 20th century with 223 covers from 1920 to 2010. Hence, as BP cannot express the dative case anymore, nor via a functional preposition, nor by its morphologic counterpart (the dative clitic lhe), it has also lost the possibility of introducing dative elements in its argument structure by an applicative head. Thus, BP has shifted from a type of language which has evidence for Case, as EP, to one where Case is assigned via lexical prepositions. Consequently, I assume that the indirect arguments in BP are always headed by a lexical preposition and are introduced in the argument structure via a p head (cf. Svenonius 2003, 2004, 2007 and Wood 2012).