Submitted by Caroline Xavier (caroline.xavier@pucrs.br) on 2017-06-30T18:45:11Z No. of bitstreams: 1 DIS_RENATO_AUGUSTO_VORTMANN_DE_BARBA_COMPLETO.pdf: 961856 bytes, checksum: 3bc19ee0642b80af8997a18416275a99 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-30T18:45:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DIS_RENATO_AUGUSTO_VORTMANN_DE_BARBA_COMPLETO.pdf: 961856 bytes, checksum: 3bc19ee0642b80af8997a18416275a99 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-01-19 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - CAPES / Dentro da teoria gerativa dos princ?pios e par?metros (Chomsky, 1981), categorias vazias s?o entidades utilizadas nas an?lises sint?ticas para que certas estruturas lingu?sticas n?o violem princ?pios universais (Mioto, 2007). O portugu?s brasileiro (PB) faz uso de v?rias dessas categorias em diferentes estruturas, e uma das estruturas permitidas pela l?ngua ? o fen?meno conhecido como object drop, ou objeto foneticamente nulo. Em estudos de Aquisi??o de Segunda L?ngua (SLA, no original), a teoria de Transfer?ncia Total / Acesso Total (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996) postula que o est?gio inicial do L2 ? o est?gio final do L1, mas ao encontrar estruturas que n?o s?o permitidas pela sintaxe da L1, os aprendizes acessam a GU para redefinir par?metros relacionados ?s estruturas. Considerando que o PB ? frequentemente aprendido ap?s outra l?ngua adicional, sendo assim uma L3, o Modelo da Supremacia Tipol?gica (TPM, no original) proposto por Rothman (2010) afirma que a transfer?ncia ocorrer? a partir da gram?tica da l?ngua percebida como a mais semelhante, mesmo se a transfer?ncia de outra l?ngua fosse mais facilitadora. O presente estudo aplicou uma tarefa de julgamento de aceitabilidade com diferentes estruturas em PB tanto para os falantes nativos (n = 27) quanto para os aprendizes de PB (L1 espanhol, L2 ingl?s) (n = 15) para poder comparar sua avalia??o dessas estruturas. Esperava-se que, como PB e espanhol s?o percebidos como tipologicamente mais pr?ximos, os aprendizes de PB transfeririam seus conhecimentos da L1 ao avaliar as frases em PB. Os resultados demonstram que os falantes nativos t?m avalia??es diferentes dependendo da estrutura que est? sendo testada, com objetos nulos sendo preferidos em ora??es simples, mas nenhuma prefer?ncia clara em estruturas com ilhas sint?ticas fortes. Os aprendizes de PB n?o demonstraram qualquer prefer?ncia por objetos nulos ou abertamente realizados em estruturas com ilhas sint?ticas fortes, mas mostraram prefer?ncia por objetos nulos em ora??es simples com referentes [?definido]. Assumindo FT/FA e TPM, parece que os aprendizes de PB continuam utilizando a gram?tica de sua L1 na avalia??o de algumas das estruturas, enquanto que em outras estruturas parece haver alguma converg?ncia na gram?tica alvo, o que sugere poss?vel acesso ? GU. / Within the generative theory of principles and parameters (Chomsky, 1981), empty categories are entities used in syntactic analyses so that certain language structures do not violate universal principles (Mioto, 2007). Brazilian Portuguese (BP) makes use of several of these categories in different structures, and one of the structures allowed by the language is the phenomenon known as object drop, or phonetically null objects. In studies of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), the theory of Full Transfer / Full Access (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996) posits that the initial stage of the L2 is the final stage of the L1, but in finding structures that are not allowed by the L1 syntax, learners access the UG to reset parameters related to these structures. Considering BP is often learned after another additional language, hence being an L3, the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) proposed by Rothman (2010) claims that transfer will occur from the grammar of the language perceived as the most similar, even if transfer from another language would be more facilitative. The present study contains results of an acceptability judgment task with different structures in BP given to both Native speakers (n = 27) and BP learners (L1 Spanish, L2 English)(n = 15). It was expected that, because BP and Spanish are perceived as typologically closer, BP learners would transfer their knowledge from the L1 while evaluating the sentences in BP. The results show that Native speakers have different evaluations depending on the structure being tested, with null objects being preferred in Simple clauses, but no clear preference in structures with strong syntactic islands. The BP learners did not show any clear preference for null or overt objects in structures with strong syntactic islands, but showed preference for null objects in Simple clauses with [? definite] referents. Assuming FT/FA and the TPM, it seems that BP learners kept using the grammar from their L1 in evaluating some of the structures, while in other structures there seems to be some convergence on the target grammar, hinting at some level of access to UG.

The aim of this thesis is to define the essential syntactic-semantic properties of three types of objectless sentences in present-day Swedish. The three types of objectless sentences are labeled descriptively as follows: Implicit Object Read type (IOR) with pseudo-transitive verbs like läsa ‘read’; Implicit Object Open type (IOO), which involves various sets of transitive verbs like öppna ‘open’ and bära ‘carry’; and Implicit Object Kill type (IOK), which typically involves destruction verbs like döda ‘kill’. The study is framed within Ramchand’s (2008) syntactic model with a three-partite decomposed verb phrase, which distinguishes between two types of objects: RHEMES, which are inserted into a complement position in the verb phrase, and UNDERGOERS, which are inserted into a specifier position. In this work, IOR is argued to be an objectless version of pseudo-transitive verbs with optional RHEMES, whereas IOO and IOK are argued to involve ‘true’ transitive verbs with omitted UNDERGOER objects. As a consequence, the IOR verbs are analyzed as sharing their structure with some verbs usually regarded as intransitive, such as springa ‘run’ and arbeta ‘work’, which can also marginally take RHEME objects. This opens up for a discussion on the transitive- intransitive distinction and the object status of RHEMES, as well as a discussion of lexical knowledge versus encyclopedic knowledge. The distinction of optional RHEMES and syntactically obligatory UNDERGOER objects is argued to arise from event structural differences among sets of verbs, as well as from different verb-object relations that are made possible within the three-partite verb phrase. The structural verb-object relations are argued to be influenced further by encyclopedic associations of particular verbs and by knowledge about the world. In contrast to IOR, IOO and IOK are both argued to involve the omission of an UNDERGOER object of a true transitive verb. In the case of IOO, the object referent is salient and specific, whereas for IOK, the object referent is non-specific. Thus, the restriction on IOO as well as on IOK can be informally phrased in terms of the object only being omissible if it is interpretable, or somewhat more formally, if the free variable can be bound. However, the variable binding is assumed to occur in two distinct ways, further motivating the distinction of IOO and IOK. Whereas the free variable of an IOO object is pragmatically bound, the variable of an IOK object is instead bound by an existential operator above the VP.