Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T15:07:08Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 NaraJMCM_DISSERT.pdf: 1183698 bytes, checksum: 8d3625f2ab250f1d640eb44f5cc7ddaa (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-01-31 / Based on studies on the structure of copulates sentences in Brazilian Portuguese (PB), according to grammar theory, it s analyzed on this dissertation, the complex copulate sentences what, in the PB, initiated by the formation ? ruim que in the PB, bringing the hypothesis that they can have one predicacional reading (PRED) and other especificacional reading (ESP). It s revealed what, though they are similar slightly, that makes the different that are triggered is structural configuration of sentence and the form as come emerged the its constituents: that of PRED interpretation, that we defined as Common Copulate Sentence (or SCC), it s checked that the constituent ruim, and only it, is predicate of a Small Clause, and appears in the structure on even position wherein is pronounced, not passing by the method of movement, from where introduce wide predication on all subject, that is the CP built-in; those sentences ? ruim que understanding ESP, that denominate of Negative Copulate Sentence (or SCN), whereas the fixed expression contradict or right what is asserted in built-in, it s perceived what the ruim is a part of this fixed expression, and surely crystallized, which appears in structure per movement, germinated as adjunct of Inflexional Phrase (IP) and being elevation to specifier to FocP (or SpecFocP), where acquires discursive interpretation of focus. Besides the mode as the ruim or the fixed expression emerge in that sentences, the relation between the copula and main verb likewise contribute to distinguish the sentences: 1) regarding flexion of mode, when is a SCC, the copula must be in the mode indicative, and the main verb, in the subjunctive; when is a SCN, copula and main verb must be always on indicative; 2) regarding flexion of temp, both the copula as main verb of the SCC can be flexed, whereas at the SCN, the main verb can vary in present, past and future, but the copula should appear, necessarily, in third persona of present of indicative, what confirms our hypothesis that there is an fixed expression at the copulate sentences with ? ruim que ESP. Other two evidences are pointed as characteristics that distinguish the sentence with ? ruim que PRED of sentence with ? ruim que ESP: 1) in semantics, the constituent ruim equals not good, that has appreciation, when the reading will PRED; already the pair ? ruim equals not, at the ESP; 2) in prosody, there discrete sound elevation the ruim on the other constituents of SCC, PRED, while there is accentuated acoustic elevation on the ruim of SCN, ESP. Our search it is grounded in authors as Zanfeliz (2000), Modesto (2001), Mioto (2003), Kato & Ribeiro (2006), Lobo (2006), Quarezemin (2006, 2009, 2011, 2012) e Resenes (2009), researchers that devoted their attention on studies the formation and organization of the constituents of cleaved sentences and focalization of constituent, basing itself in approach generative of linguistic / Embasados em trabalhos sobre a estrutura das senten?as copulares no Portugu?s Brasileiro (PB), conforme a teoria da gram?tica, analisamos nesta disserta??o as senten?as copulares complexas encabe?adas pela estrutura ? ruim que no PB, trazendo a hip?tese de que elas podem ter uma leitura predicacional (PRED) e outra especificacional (ESP). Revelamos que, apesar de serem superficialmente id?nticas, o que contribui para que as distintas leituras sejam desencadeadas ? a configura??o estrutural da senten?a e a forma como aparecem os seus constituintes: naquelas de interpreta??o PRED, que as definimos como Senten?a Copular Comum (ou SCC), checamos que o constituinte ruim, e somente ele, ? o predicador de uma Small Clause, e surge na estrutura no lugar mesmo em que ? pronunciado, n?o passando por processo de movimento, de onde insere ampla predica??o sobre todo o sujeito, que ? o CP encaixado; naquelas ? ruim que de entendimento ESP, que chamamos de Senten?a Copular de Nega??o (ou SCN), tendo em vista a express?o fixa negar ou corrigir o que ? afirmado na encaixada, verificamos que o ruim faz parte dessa express?o fixa, e j? cristalizada, a qual aparece na estrutura por meio de movimento, nascendo como adjunto de IP e sendo al?ado at? o especificador de FocP (ou SpecFocP), onde adquire fun??o discursiva de foco. Al?m da forma como o ruim ou a express?o fixa surge nessas senten?as, a rela??o entre a c?pula e o verbo principal tamb?m contribui para distinguir as senten?as: 1) quanto ? flex?o de modo, quando ? uma SCC, a c?pula deve estar no modo indicativo, e o verbo principal, no subjuntivo; quando ? uma SCN, c?pula e verbo principal devem estar sempre no modo indicativo; 2) quanto ? flex?o de tempo, tanto a c?pula quanto o verbo principal das SCC podem ser flexionados, enquanto nas SCN, o verbo principal pode variar entre presente, passado e futuro, mas a c?pula deve aparecer, necessariamente, na terceira pessoa do presente do indicativo, o que vem confirmar nossa hip?tese de que h? uma express?o fixa nas estruturas copulares com ? ruim que ESP. Outras duas evid?ncias s?o apontadas como caracter?sticas que distinguem a senten?a com ? ruim que PRED da senten?a com ? ruim que ESP: 1) na sem?ntica, o constituinte ruim equivale a n?o ? bom, que tem valor apreciativo, quando a leitura for PRED; o par ? ruim equivale a n?o, nas ESP; 2) na pros?dia, h? uma discreta eleva??o sonora do ruim sobre os demais constituintes das SCC, PRED, enquanto h? uma acentuada eleva??o ac?stica sobre o ruim das SCN, ESP. Nossa pesquisa est? fundamentada em autores como Zanfeliz (2000), Modesto (2001), Mioto (2003), Kato & Ribeiro (2006), Lobo (2006), Quarezemin (2006, 2009, 2011, 2012) e Resenes (2009), pesquisadores que dedicaram aten??o ? forma??o e constru??o das constru??es clivadas e focaliza??o, baseando-se na perspectiva da corrente gerativa da lingu?stica

Orientador: Sonia Maria Lazzarini Cyrino / Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-21T04:51:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 TeixeiradeSousa_Lilian_D.pdf: 3506329 bytes, checksum: e5635d7c31b15e173507503856816bd4 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 / Resumo: A negação sentencial no Português Brasileiro (PB) pode ser realizada através de três tipos diferentes de estruturas considerando o número e a posição de partículas negativas: [Neg V], [Neg V Não] e [V Não]. Essa distribuição é bastante rara nas línguas naturais, já que, geralmente, as línguas apresentam apenas uma estrutura para expressar negação sentencial e, algumas vezes, uma estrutura adicional com função discursiva. Alguns pesquisadores associam essa alternância de formas a um processo de mudança linguística conhecido como Ciclo de Jespersen (Schwegler 1991, Furtado da Cunha 1996), enquanto outros explicam a alternância em termos de estrutura informacional (Schwenter 2005; Cavalcante 2007, 2012). Neste estudo, buscamos descrever a ocorrência das estruturas na língua, através de testes de aceitabilidade e preferência, com o objetivo de formular uma análise dentro do quadro teórico da sintaxe gerativa que considerasse tanto as características distributivas quanto as possibilidades de interpretação dessas estruturas. Na literatura linguística é bastante recorrente a afirmação de que apenas a estrutura [Neg V] é livre de restrições sintáticas, o que tem servido de argumento para caracterizá-la como a negação padrão do PB. As outras duas formas, porém, apresentam fortes restrições sintáticas, não sendo ambas possíveis em perguntas-Qu ou em encaixadas temporais. Em nossa análise, verificamos que, além das diferenças entre forma padrão e formas marcadas, as estruturas [Neg V Não] e [V Não] apresentam distinções quando comparadas, por isso, as consideramos, assim como Biberauer & Cyrino (2009), como fenômenos diversos. [V Não], como observamos, não é possível em nenhum tipo de oração encaixada ou com o preenchimento de sujeitos não definidos ou ainda para veicular informação nova, estando restrita a contextos responsivos. [Neg V Não], por outro lado, não é compatível apenas com infinitivas ou encaixadas temporais e não apresenta restrições quanto ao tipo de sujeito e nem quanto ao tipo de informação, se nova ou dada. Também entoacionalmente as estruturas apresentam distinções, enquanto o não de [V Não] não é prosodicamente proeminente, o não final de [Neg V Não] pode ou não ser prosodicamente proeminente. Uma vez que tanto [Neg V] quanto [Neg V Não] podem veicular informação nova e dada, tratamo-las como negações semânticas. Considerando, entretanto, as restrições de [Neg V Não] em sentenças não temporalmente marcadas ou coocorrendo com conjunções subordinativas temporais, passamos a relacioná-la à categoria T. Tendo em vista, ainda, a incompatibilidade dessa estrutura em contextos narrativos, em que não há proposições, mas o sequenciamento de eventos, definimos essa estrutura enquanto um tipo de negação semântica com escopo sobre proposições em oposição à [Neg V], que teria escopo sobre situações. [V Não], por ocorrer unicamente em contextos responsivos e não ser capaz de licenciar itens de polaridade, é interpretada não como uma negação semântica, mas como uma estrutura com a função pragmática de foco. Do ponto de vista teórico, considerando a proposta de Fases, relacionamos a estrutura [Neg V] à fase V, [Neg V Não] à fase T e [V Não] ao CP, periferia à esquerda da fase T / Abstract: Sentential negation in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) may be accomplished through three different kinds of structures, considering the number and position of the negative particles: [Neg V], [Neg V Não] and [V Não]. This distribution is quite rare in natural languages, which usually feature only one structure to express sentential negation, with an optional structure to convey a discourse function. While some researchers have identified this alternation between forms with a process of linguistic change known as Jespersen's Cycle (Schwegler 1991, Furtado da Cunha 1996), some others explain this variation in terms of information structure (Schwenter 2005; Cavalcante 2007, 2012). In this study, we seek to describe the occurrence of these structures in BP by means of acceptability and preference tests, with the objective of formulating an analysis within the theoretical framework of generative syntax that would consider both distributive characteristics and possible interpretations of these structures. In the linguistic literature, it is frequently claimed that the [Neg V] structure is the only one devoid of syntactic restrictions. Such an idea has been presented as an argument for its character as the standard negation form in BP. On the other hand, the other two forms do have strong syntactic restrictions, once they are not both possible in wh-questions or in embedded time clauses. In our analysis we have noticed that, in addition to the differences between the standard form and the other ones, there is a distinction between the [Neg V Não] and [V Não] structures. Therefore we consider them to be separate phenomena, likewise Biberauer & Cyrino (2009a, 2009b): [V Não], as we have observed, is impossible in all kinds of embedded clause, with undefined subjects or even when conveying new information, as it is restricted to response contexts; [Neg V Não], on the other hand, is only incompatible with infinitive or embedded time clauses, and is unrestricted as to the type of subject or type of information conveyed, that is, whether new or given. These structures also contain intonational distinctions: while the 'não' in [V Não] is not prosodically prominent, the final 'não' in [Neg V Não] may or may not be prosodically prominent. Given that both [Neg V] and [Neg V Não] can convey both new and given information, they are treated as semantic negations. By taking into account that [Neg V Não] is not acceptable either in infinitival sentences or in sentences introduced by temporal conjunctions, we put forth that the second 'não' is merged in the T domain. Besides, given the incompatibility of this structure with narrative contexts in which there are no propositions but rather a sequence of events, we have defined this structure as a kind of semantic negation taking scope over propositions as opposed to [Neg V], which takes scope over situations. And because [V Não] occurs solely in the context of response and does not allow for polarity items, we have defined it not as a semantic negation, but as a structure marking pragmatic focus. From a theoretical standpoint, considering Phase Theory, we have related the [Neg V] structure to the V phase, [Neg V Não] to the T phase and [V Não] to the CP, the left periphery of the T phase / Doutorado / Linguistica / Doutora em Linguística

Die Erforschung des musikalischen Stils hat viele Facetten, darunter die komplexen kognitiven Strategien, die beim Verstehen musikalischer Informationen zum Tragen kommen, die Konstruktion experimenteller Verfahren, mit denen Musik als ästhetisches Phänomen untersucht werden kann, und die Definition des Begriffs ›Stil‹ selbst. In ihrem Beitrag Le regole della musica (1999) analysierten Mario Baroni, Rossana Dalmonte und Carlo Jacoboni einen Korpus von Arien des Barockkomponisten Giovanni Legrenzi und konstruierten mit Hilfe einer generativen Grammatik ein Regelsystem, das in eine Software namens Legre implementiert wurde, die vermeintlich Arien im Stil von Legrenzi ›komponiert‹. Ziel der vorliegenden Studie ist es, die stilistische Validität von Legre mit Hilfe von Methoden aus der kognitiven Psychologie zu überprüfen. Es wurden Experimente mit Musikern und Nicht-Musikern durchgeführt, um festzustellen, ob Legre eine gültige Grammatik von Legrenzi herzustellen in der Lage ist, d.h., ob eine generative Grammatik den Stil eines Komponisten beschreiben und wiedergeben kann. Die Ergebnisse zahlreicher Experimente zeigen einen Unterschied in der Unterscheidungsfähigkeit zwischen Musikern und Nicht-Musikern; die Leistung einer Person im Unterscheidungsprozess hängt nicht nur von der Einarbeitungsphase in die Aufgabe ab, sondern auch vom Vorwissen der Person. Das Zusammenspiel zwischen diesen Daten und theoretischen Überlegungen trägt dazu bei, die Natur des Stils zu erklären. / The investigation of musical style involves many facets, among them the complex cognitive strategies involved in the understanding of musical information, the construction of experimental procedures able to study music as an aesthetic phenomenon, and even the definition of the term “style” at all. In the work Le regole della musica (1999), Mario Baroni, Rossana Dalmonte, and Carlo Jacoboni analysed a corpus of arias by the baroque composer Giovanni Legrenzi, and by means of a generative grammar they constructed a system of rules that was implemented in a software named Legre, which supposedly “composes” arias in Legrenzi’s style. The aim of the present study is to verify the stylistic validity of Legre’s output by using methods adopted in cognitive psychology. Experiments with musicians and non-musicians were designed in order to assess whether Legre is a valid grammar of Legrenzi—that is, whether a generative grammar is able to describe and recreate the style of a composer. The results of numerous experiments reveal a difference in discrimination ability between musicians and non-musicians; a person’s performance in the process of discrimination depends not only on the training phase of the task, but also on one’s prior knowledge. The interaction between these data and theoretical reflection contributes to the explication of the nature of style.

This essay surveys the current theoretical landscape of modern linguistics, asking whethe generative and possibly transformational linguistics can be applied to syntactic analysis of New Testament texts written in Koine Greek to find lingual hallmarks in the form of personal usage of syntactic rules that uniquely identify the authors of the texts. The conclusion is that there seems to be evidence that an application of a minimalist approach could make the detection of such lingual hallmarks possible.

Für das Deutsche wird gemeinhin eine strikte V2-Beschränkung angenommen, die für deklarative Hauptsätze besagt, dass sich vor dem finiten Verb genau eine Konstituente befinden muss. In der Literatur werden häufig Beispiele angeführt, in denen sich zwei Konstituenten vor dem finiten Verb befinden und die somit gegen die V2-Beschränkung verstoßen. Diese syntaktische Konfiguration, so das Argument, führt zu Ungrammatikalität: (1) *Gestern Johann hat getanzt. (Roberts & Roussou 2002:137) Die Bewertung in (1) fußt jedoch nicht auf empirischer Evidenz, sondern spiegelt ein introspektives Urteil der Autor*innen wider. Daten zum tatsächlichen Sprachgebrauch zeigen, dass Sätze wie in (2) im Deutschen durchaus verwendet werden: (2) Aber immer alle sagen das. [BSa-OB, #16] Die Dissertation beschäftigt sich mit dem Status dieser V3-Deklarativsätze im Deutschen. Der Status wird aus drei einander ergänzenden Perspektiven auf Sprache untersucht: Sprachverwendung, Akzeptabilität und Verarbeitung. Hierzu werden Daten, die in einer Korpus-, einer Akzeptabilitäts- und einer Lesezeitstudie erhoben wurden, ausgewertet. Basierend auf den empirischen Befunden diskutiere ich V3-Modellierungen aus generativer Sicht und entwickle einen Modellierungsvorschlag aus konstruktionsgrammatischer Sicht. Die Arbeit zeigt, dass die Einbeziehung von nicht-standardsprachlichen Mustern wichtige Einblicke in die sprachliche Architektur gibt. Insbesondere psycholinguistisch gewonnene Daten als empirische Basis sind essenziell, um mentale sprachliche Prozesse zu verstehen und abbilden zu können. Die Analyse von V3 zeigt, dass solche Ansätze möglich und nötig sind, um Grammatikmodelle zu prüfen und weiterzuentwickeln. Untersuchungen dieser Art stellen Grammatikmodelle in Frage, die oft einer standardsprachlichen Tradition heraus erwachsen sind und nur einen Ausschnitt der sprachlichen Realität erfassen. V3-Sätze entpuppen sich nach dieser Analyse als Strukturen, die fester Bestandteil der Grammatik sind. / German is usually considered to follow a strict V2-constraint. This means that exactly one constituent must precede the finite verb in declarative main clauses. There are many examples for sentences that exhibit two preverbal constituents in the literature, illustrating a violation of the V2-constraint. According to the literature, these configurations lead to ungrammatical structures. (1) *Gestern Johann hat getanzt. (Roberts & Roussou 2002:137) However, the evaluation in (1) is not based on empirical evidence but is introspective and thus might not reflect the linguistic reality. Empirical data from actual language use show that German speakers indeed use these kinds of sentences. (2) Aber immer alle sagen das. [BSa-OB, #16] The dissertation explores the status of these V3 declaratives in German, with ‘status’ comprising three complementary perspectives on language: language use, acceptability, and processing. To this end, I analyze data from three studies: a corpus study, an acceptability judgment study, and a reading time study. Based on the empirical evidence, I discuss existing analyses of V3 and V3-modeling from the generative perspective and develop an analysis taking a construction-based approach. The dissertation shows that including patterns from non-standard language allows for valuable insights into the architecture of language. In particular, psycholinguistic data as an empirical basis are essential to understand and model mental linguistic processes. The analyses presented in the dissertation show that it is possible to follow such an approach in the field of syntactic variation, and it is indeed necessary in order to challenge and further develop existing grammatical theories and our understanding of grammar. Most grammatical models strongly rely on standard language, which is why they only capture a snippet of the linguistic reality. Taking empirical evidence into account, however, V3 sentences turn out to form an integral part of the German grammar.