A família de construções de argumento cindido no português do Brasil

Abstract

Adopting the perspective of Usage-Based Construction Grammar (GOLDBERG, 1995; 2006; TOMASELLO, 2006), this study aims to describe and analyze the Argument Structure Construction in Brazilian Portuguese, which allows sentences such as: (i) O estudante quebrou o braço; (ii) Meu tênis descolou o solado; (iii) Rubinho quebrou o carro; (iv) O combustível subiu o preço. Our analysis of this phenomenon assumes that this Construction illustrates a case of mismatch (FRANCIS; MICHAELIS, 2000; MICHAELIS, 2004; TRAUGOTT, 2007) between the number of syntactic and semantic roles. Semantically, the highlighted sentences above have only one argument – the affected entity – and, in fact, in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) there is a socalled ‘Canonical Ergative Construction’ which exemplifies a perfect match between the construction’s syntax and the verb’s semantics: (v) O braço do estudante quebrou; (vi) O solado do meu tênis descolou; (vii) O carro do Rubinho quebrou; (viii) O preço do combustível subiu. However, the construction we have named Split Argument Construction (SAC), in spite of its single semantic argument, presents two syntatic arguments – a subject and a direct object. The subject of SAC corresponds to the element which, in the Canonical Ergative, is syntatically expressed as a nominal adjunct; and the head of Ergative Canonical subject appears as the direct object in the Split Argument Construction. Semantically, the subject of SAC represents the WHOLE of the affected entity and a specific PART of this entity is expressed, in the syntax, as a direct object. The analysis of the semantic aspects of this construction will be based on Frame Semantics (FILLMORE, 1977; FILLMORE; JOHNSON; PETRUCK, 2003). Despite the shared syntactic, semantic and discursive properties, which have lead us to identify the same Argument Structure Construction covering all the statements in (i) - (iv), four sub-types become recognizable. The first, illustrated by (i), can be directly related to what has been referred to in the literature as Possessor Raising. In this case, there is an inalienable relation of possession between a human possessor and the parts of his body. In the second sub-type, represented by (ii), the relation – still one of inalienable possession – is established between a device and one of its parts. In the third group, example (iii), there is a relation between a human possessor and a possessed object; in this case, an alienable relation of possession. Finally, sentences of the fourth sub-type establish a relation between an item and one of its properties. Based on authentic usage data, this study describes and analyses each one of these sub-types, providing evidence to support the claim that SAC is an Argument Structure Construction, pragmatically motivated. Considering the results of the analysis, we present a proposal to formalize SAC, in accordance with the terms of Sign-Based Construction Grammar (SAG, 2010; MICHAELLIS, 2009).