This dissertation investigates the relationship between verbs and reflexive markers within reflexive constructions, setting forth the hypothesis that the verb plays a determining role in anaphoric binding. The work builds upon Dalrymple’s (1993) argument that binding constraints are lexically specified by anaphoric elements and demonstrates that reflexive requirements can be lexically specified for distinct groups of verbs, an approach which offers another level of descriptive clarity to theories of anaphoric binding and introduces a means of predicting reflexive selection in domains where syntactic constraints do not readily apply. This is shown to be particularly pertinent in languages with more than one reflexive type that have overlapping syntactic binding domains. The hypothesis is substantiated by data from five typologically distinct languages: English, Dutch, French, Russian, and Fijian. Contributing to this data set, new empirical evidence in favour of previously unrecognized reflexive forms in the Fijian language is introduced in this work. Following Sells et al. (1987), it is demonstrated that reflexive constructions are definable over four different components of linguistic representation and a quadripartite linguistic analysis is, therefore, adopted that incorporates c-structure, f-structure, lexical structure, and semantic structure within a Lexical Functional Grammar theoretical framework. The level of semantic structure is found to be particularly interesting since the realization of a reflexive construction is shown to be influenced by differing semantic requirements between verbs and reflexives. On the basis of several semantic tests, verbs in reflexive constructions are shown to have two different predicate structure types, ‘transitive’ and ‘intransitive’, and reflexive markers are shown to have three different internal semantic structures, ‘strict’ (x,x), ‘close’ (x,f(x)), and ‘near’ (x,y). The syntactic, semantic, and lexical characteristics of the reflexives and verbs analyzed over the data set presented in this work result in the identification of eight different reflexive/verb types and the establishment of two implicational relationships: <ol><li>Reflexive markers in lexically intransitive reflexive constructions have no semantic content.</li><li>Verbs that take a reflexive argument with a strict (x,x) or close (x,f(x)) internal structure must be intransitive at the semantic component of linguistic structure.</li></ol> These results contribute to our understanding of anaphoric binding theory, directed verb categories, the syntax-semantics interface, and the licensing of multiple reflexive types within a given language.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-15T19:41:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Janaina da Silva Augusto.pdf: 1246191 bytes, checksum: 37384b735f35dd5c75fabad75bfa901e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-08-02 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The aim of this work is to compare adversative constructions and concessive constructions which occur in editorials. This paper is based on the theory of functional grammar, which postulates the conjunction of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic factors in the analysis of linguistic use. Taking these aspects into consideration, it intends to investigate possible reasons which motivate the use of one construction instead of the other in particular contexts. The results reached show that, on one hand, there are areas of overlap between adversative constructions and concessive constructions for the fact that they display relation of preference (GARCÍA, 1994). On the other hand, there are areas of contrast between these constructions due to the fact that each of them plays a particular role in certain contexts, which is resulted from the specific functions fulfilled by a concessive element, as margin (LONGACRE, 2007), satellite (DIK, 1989; MATTHIESSEN & THOMPSON, 1988), enhancement (HALLIDAY, 2004), guidepost (CHAFE, 1984, apud DECAT, 1993), background (GIVÓN, 1990) and theme (GARCÍA, 1994). In the analysis, it was observed that most of the differences between the constructions in discussion are related to the fact that specifically the concessive element, as margin or satellite, can present mechanism of anticipation, displaying particular effects / O objetivo desta dissertação é comparar as construções adversativas e as construções concessivas presentes em editoriais. Baseia-se, aqui, na teoria funcionalista da linguagem, segundo a qual, na análise linguística, deve haver a integração dos componentes sintático, semântico e pragmático. Levando-se isso em consideração, pretende-se investigar, entre outros aspectos, as possíveis motivações para o uso de uma das construções em estudo em vez de outra em certos contextos. Os resultados alcançados mostram que, por um lado, há pontos de contato entre as construções adversativas e as construções concessivas porque elas se incluem na lei da preferência (GARCÍA, 1994). Por outro lado, há pontos de contraste entre essas construções devido ao fato de que cada uma delas desempenha um papel específico em certos contextos, o que é decorrente da condição particular de margem (LONGACRE, 2007), satélite (DIK, 1989; MATTHIESSEN & THOMPSON, 1988), realce (HALLIDAY, 2004), guia (CHAFE, 1984, apud DECAT, 1993), fundo (GIVÓN, 1990) e tema (GARCÍA, 1994) das adverbiais concessivas. Na análise empreendida, observou-se que muitas das diferenças entre as construções em estudo estão relacionadas ao fato de que o segmento concessivo, como margem ou satélite, pode apresentar mecanismo de antecipação, sendo produzidos efeitos de sentido particulares

Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-15T19:46:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Renata Margarido.pdf: 1076677 bytes, checksum: 75639920a0f89708e97922729c784108 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-02-24 / Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo / The aim of this work is to compare adversative constructions and concessive constructions which occur in editorials. This paper is based on the theory of functional grammar, which postulates the conjunction of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic factors in the analysis of linguistic use. Taking these aspects into consideration, it intends to investigate possible reasons which motivate the use of one construction instead of the other in particular contexts. The results reached show that, on one hand, there are areas of overlap between adversative constructions and concessive constructions for the fact that they display relation of preference (GARCÍA, 1994). On the other hand, there are areas of contrast between these constructions due to the fact that each of them plays a particular role in certain contexts, which is resulted from the specific functions fulfilled by a concessive element, as margin (LONGACRE, 2007), satellite (DIK, 1989; MATTHIESSEN & THOMPSON, 1988), enhancement (HALLIDAY, 2004), guidepost (CHAFE, 1984, apud DECAT, 1993), background (GIVÓN, 1990) and theme (GARCÍA, 1994). In the analysis, it was observed that most of the differences between the constructions in discussion are related to the fact that specifically the concessive element, as margin or satellite, can present mechanism of anticipation, displaying particular effects. / O objetivo desta dissertação é comparar as construções adversativas e as construções concessivas presentes em editoriais. Baseia-se, aqui, na teoria funcionalista da linguagem, segundo a qual, na análise linguística, deve haver a integração dos componentes sintático, semântico e pragmático. Levando-se isso em consideração, pretende-se investigar, entre outros aspectos, as possíveis motivações para o uso de uma das construções em estudo em vez de outra em certos contextos. Os resultados alcançados mostram que, por um lado, há pontos de contato entre as construções adversativas e as construções concessivas porque elas se incluem na lei da preferência (GARCÍA, 1994). Por outro lado, há pontos de contraste entre essas construções devido ao fato de que cada uma delas desempenha um papel específico em certos contextos, o que é decorrente da condição particular de margem (LONGACRE, 2007), satélite (DIK, 1989; MATTHIESSEN & THOMPSON, 1988), realce (HALLIDAY, 2004), guia (CHAFE, 1984, apud DECAT, 1993), fundo (GIVÓN, 1990) e tema (GARCÍA, 1994) das adverbiais concessivas. Na análise empreendida, observou-se que muitas das diferenças entre as construções em estudo estão relacionadas ao fato de que o segmento concessivo, como margem ou satélite, pode apresentar mecanismo de antecipação, sendo produzidos efeitos de sentido particulares.