Small clauses es pop
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1984-8412.2020v17nespp4673Resumen
El estado categórico de las Small Clauses siempre se discutió en la literatura (SC (STOWELL, 1981; MORO 2000 y otros), PrP (BOWERS, 1993), PredP (BAILYN, 2001) etc.) y, dado que una teoría de estructura de frases exocéntricas pide que los objetos sintácticos tienen rótulo para Interpretación Plena los interprete en CI, por lo que es importante preguntar cuál es la etiqueta de las SC. El objetivo principal de este artículo es argumentar que el sistema presentado en los dos artículos recientes, Problems of Projection, PoP (CHOMSKY, 2013, 2015), puede explicar la morfología del caso y el acuerdo dentro de las SCs interlingüísticamente, discutiendo los datos del portugués y ruso. Propongo que, en el sistema PoP, las SCs se puedan etiquetar como ?, cuando el sujeto y el predicado comparten estos rasgos. De lo contrario, cuando la morfología del conjunto sujeto-predicado no coincide, el sujeto debe ser elevado, de modo que se verifique el rasgo de caso del predicado.
Citas
ADGER, D.; RAMCHAND, G. Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry, v. 34, n. 3, p. 325-359, 2003.
BAILYN, J. The syntax of slavic predicate case. ZAS Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Berlin, 2001. p. 1-26.
BAILYN, J.; RUBIN, E. J. The unification of Instrumental case assignment in Russian. In: TORIBIO, A.; HARBERT , W. (ed.). Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics, v. 9, , Ithaca, New York: Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Cornell University, 1991. p. 99-126.
BENVENISTE, E. “Ser” e “Ter” nas suas Funções Lingüísticas. In: BENVENISTE, E. (org.). Problemas de Lingüística Geral. São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional, 1966. p. 204-227.
BOWERS, J. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry, v. 24, p. 591-656, 1993.
BRUCART, J. M. La alternancia ser/estar y las construcciones atributivas de localización. In:. AVELLANA, A. (ed.). Actas del V Encuentro de Gramática Generativa. Maestría en Lingüística, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, 2010. p. 115-152
CHOMSKY, N. Minimalist inquires: the framework. In: MARTIN, R; MICHAEL, D; URIAGEREKA, J. (eds.). Step-by-Step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000. p. 89-155.
CHOMSKY, N. Derivation by phase. In: KENSTOWICZ, M. (ed.). Ken Hale: a life in language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2001. p. 1-52.
CHOMSKY, N. Problems of projection. Lingua, v. 130, p. 33-49, 2013.
CHOMSKY, N. Problems of projection: extensions. In: DI DOMENICO, E.; HAMANN, C.; MATTEINI, S. (ed.). Structures, strategies and beyond. Amsterdã/Filadelfia: Benjamins, 2015. p. 1-16.
CITKO, B. Small clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua, v. 118, p. 261-295, 2008.
COLLINS, C. Eliminating labels. In: EPSTEIN, S. D.; SEELY, T. D. (ed.). Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2002. p. 42-64.
CONTRERAS, H. Small clauses and complex predicates. In: CARDINALETTI, A.; GUASTI, M. T. (ed.). Syntax and semantics: small clauses. v. 28. California: Academic Press, 1995. p. 135-152.
DEN DIKKEN, M. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2006.
EPSTEIN, S D., KITAHARA, H; SEELY, D. Labeling by minimal search: Implications for successive cyclic A-movement and the elimination of the postulate “phase”. Linguistic Inquiry, v.45, p. 463-481, 2014.
FOLTRAN, M J D. G.; RODRIGUES, P A. On denoting abstract entities. Revista da ABRALIN, v. 12, p. 269-291, 2013.
FRY, B. Some notes on Chomsky 2013. Handout, 2013.
GALLEGO, Á J.; URIEGEREKA, J. Estar = Ser + X. Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, v. 5, n.11, p. 123-156, 2016.
GALVES, C. Ensaios sobre as gramáticas do português. Campinas: Ed. Unicamp, 2001.
GUÉRON, J.; HOEKSTRA, T. The temporal interpretation of predication. In: CARDINALETTI, A.; GUASTI, M. T. (ed.). Syntax and semantics: small clauses. v. 28. Califórnia: Academic Press, 1995. p. 77-107.
HARBOUR, D.; ADGER, D.; BÉJAR, S. Phi-Theory. Oxford: Oxford, 2008.
HARVES, S. Where have all the phases gone? (non-)defective categories and case alternations in russian. In: TOMAN, J. (ed.). Formal approaches to slavic linguistics: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 2002. p. 97-118.
HIGGINS, F. R. The pseudo-cleft construction in english. 1976. 362 f. PhD Dissertation, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Indiana, 1976.
KAYNE, R. S. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1994.
MALING, J; SPROUSE, R. A. Structural case, specifier-head relations, and the case of predicate NPs. In: HAIDER, Hubert; OLSEN, S.; VKNER, S. (ed.). Studies in comparative germanic syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995. p. 167-186.
MATUSHANSKY, O. Predication: a case study. In: MARUŠIČ, F.; ŽAUCER, R. (eds.). Studies in Formal Slavic Linguistics. Contributions from Formal Description of Slavic Languages 6.5. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006. p. 213-239.
MATUSHANSKY, O. Some cases of Russian. Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL) Moscow , v.7, n. 5, dec. 6-8, 2008.
MOLINA, S. G. Sobre las diferencias entre ser y estar. El tipo de predicado y el tipo de sujeto. Redele, n. 13, jun. 2008.
MORO, A. Per una teoria unificata delle frasi copulari. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, v. 13, p. 81-110, 1988.
MORO, A. Dynamic antisymmetry, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2000.
MORO, A. Some notes on unstable structures. Ms., Università San Raffaele di Milano, 2006.
PERELTSVAIG, A. Copular sentences in Russian. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007.
SAITO, M. Case and labeling in a language without ϕ-feature agreement. Ms. Nanzan University, 2013.
STOWELL, T. Origins of phrase structure. 1981. 496 f. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Massachusetts, 1981.
STOWELL, T. Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review, n. 2, p. 285-312, 1983.
URIAGEREKA, J. “Adjectival Clues,” keynote speech at Acquisition of Spanish & Portuguese. In: HISPANIC LINGUISTICS SYMPOSIUM, 2001, Illinois. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (USA). Anais… Illinois, 2001. p. 11-14.
WILLIAMS, E. Small Clauses in English. In: KIMBALL, J. Syntax and semantics. v. 4. New York: Academic Press, 1975. p. 249-273.
WILLIAMS, E. Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, p. 287-308, 1983.
ZAGONA, K. Ser and estar differ in both structure and aspectual features. Plenary talk given at Chronos 8. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TENSE, ASPECT, MOOD, AND MODALITY, 2008, Austin. University of Texas. Anais…, Austin, 2008.
