Abordagem semântico-pragmática da construção concessivo-comparativa anteposta simples “PARA X, Y” e construção concessivo-comparativa anteposta enfática “ATÉ QUE PARA X, Y”

Abstract

Utterances as (1) “até que para um carro 1.0 ele anda bem na estrada” and (2) “PRA QUEM JÁ MORDEU UM CACHORRO POR COMIDA, ATÉ QUE EU CHEGUEI LONGE” call our attention to the fact that they express a kind of concessivity (frustration of expectations) whilst an element is put in evidence as compared to the frame to which it is bound. Based on the assumptions of Construction Grammar (GOLDBERG, 1995, 2006; FILLMORE;-LEE GOLDMAN & RHOMIEUX, 2012), Mental Space theory (FAUCONNIER, 1994, 1997; FAUCONNIER & TURNER, 2002), and also approaches to concessivity (KÖNIG & SIEMUND, 2000) and linguistic comparison (HASEGAWA et al, 2010), we aim to legitimize these kinds of occurrences as instances of Emphatic Prefixed Concessive-comparative Construction (henceforth CCCAE), in (1), schematized by “ATÉ QUE PARA X, Y”; and Simple Prefixed Concessive-comparative Construction (henceforth CCCAS), in (2), schematized by “PARA X, Y”. In these schemes, “X” is marked as a Noun Phrase preferably Indefinite, which creates certain expectations of frames; and “Y” contains an evaluative comment contrary to expectations. In this sense, studies on Frame Semantics (FILLMORE, 1982) and further studies on Appraisal (MARTIN & WHITE, 2005) contribute to the research. Following an empirical methodology, we set up a database by searching in three areas of the Internet: “abril.com.br”, “blogspot.com.br” and “br.answers.yahoo.com” with the following search expressions: “(até que) para/pra alguém”; “(até que) para/pra quem”; “(até que) para/pra um”; “(até que) para/pra uma”. At the end, we obtained 19 valid occurrences of CCCAS and 385 valid occurrences of CCCAE. From the data analysis, we can consider some aspects of the constructions. When there is coreferenciality (directly or indirectly) between X and the element mentioned in Y, these constructions typically act to establish a concessivecomparative relationship between the expectation generated from X and the break of expectations in the comment in Y, which is about an element that acts as a less prototypical member of the category driven by the evoked frame in X. As for CCCAE, the three most mentioned frames in Y – Desirability, Success_or_failure and Aesthetics – are conceptual schemes linked to the evaluation, which is a strong indication that this construction has an evaluative character. As an evaluative resource, CCCAE is most commonly used to assess the quality of products and judge human behavior in relation to capacity. Both CCCAE and CCCAS seem to promote a conceptual blending process, which relates scales between mental spaces and promotes the emergence of ad hoc category, in which the evaluation is relativized to a group of expectations; ranging between praise and criticism. As these constructions promote a kind of veiled criticism, they act as powerful argumentative and evaluative linguistic resources.