Email this article 
A polissemia da construção relacional binominal SN1 de SN2 no Português Brasileiro/ Polysemy of relational binominal construction NP de NP in Brazilian Portuguese
Abstract
Resumo: Neste trabalho, buscamos descrever a construção relacional binominal do tipo SN1 de SN2 no português brasileiro, em termos dos diferentes sentidos associados a ela, tais como parte-todo, localização, especialização etc. A hipótese geral é a de que esses sentidos compartilham propriedades entre si e formam um continuum entre dois domínios – o da POSSE e o da TIPIFICAÇÃO. Baseamos nossa análise no argumento de que construções do tipo SN1 de SN2 se relacionam a um esquema que evoca a habilidade de ponto de referência, nos termos de Langacker (1991; 2003). Em termos teórico-epistemológicos, partimos da perspectiva da Linguística Baseada no Uso. Para demonstrar a polissemia da construção, foi feita uma análise qualitativa de dados no Corpus do Português, em que se procurou descrever como os diferentes sentidos se relacionam e se distribuem daqueles mais prototipicamente associados ao domínio da POSSE, passando pelos que vão se distanciando das relações possessivas e chegando até os mais prototípicos do domínio da TIPIFICAÇÃO.
Palavras-chave: possessivos; Gramática de Construções; Linguística Baseada no Uso.
Abstract: In this work, we aim to describe the relational binominal construction NP1 de NP2, in Brazilian Portuguese, in terms of the different meanings associated with it, such as part-whole, location, specialization, among others. The general hypothesis is that those meanings share similarities and form a continuum between two domains, i.e., POSSESSION and TYPIFICATION.
We argue that relational binominal constructions are associated with a schema that evokes a conceptualizer tracing a mental path from reference point to target (Langacker, 1991; 2003). To support this claim and describe the polysemy of that construction, we analyzed and collected data from Corpus do Português. In our qualitative analysis, we observed that relational binominal constructions are instantiated by prototypical possessives (POSSESSION domain) and by prototypical typifier (TYPIFICATION domain). Also, it covers exemplars that are in the middle of the continuum.
Keyword: possessives; Construction Grammar; Usage-Based Linguistics.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDF (Português (Brasil))References
BARLOW, M. & KEMMER, S. (Eds.). Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI
Publications, 2000.
BOOIJ, G. The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
BOURQUE, Y. S. Toward a typology of semantic transparency: The case of French compounds. University of Toronto PhD dissertation, 2014.
BYBEE, J. Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge, UK: CUP, 2010.
_______. Language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
CALABRESE, R. "Living on the edge of two languages": A contrastive analysis of possessive constructions in Smaro Kamboureli's In the Second Person. University of Salerno, 2011.
CEZARIO, M. M. C. e FURTADO DA CUNHA, M. A. (Org.). Linguística centrada no uso – uma homenagem a Mário Martelotta. Rio de Janeiro: Mauad: Faperj, 2013.
CROFT, W. Radical Construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
DIESSEL, H. Usage-based construction grammar. In: Ewa Dabrowska and Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2015, p. 295-321.
DIESSEL, H.; HILPERT, M. Frequency effects in grammar. In: ARONOFF, M. (Ed.). Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.
GOLDBERG, A. E. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
_______. Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
_______. Explain me this: creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019.
HAIMAN, J. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
HILPERT, M. Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: University Press, 2014.
JACKENDOFF, R. English noun-noun compounds in Conceptual Semantics. In Piusten Hacken (ed.). The semantics of compounding, 15–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
LANGACKER, R. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I. Stanford: University Press, 1987.
_______. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II. Stanford: University Press, 1991.
_______. Strategies of clausal possession. International Journal of English Studies. Vol. 3(2), p. 1-24, 2003.
______. Possession, location, and existence. In: Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer, 2009, p. 81-108.
RAJENDRAN, S. A Comprehensive Study on the Formation of Compound Verbs in Tamil. Language in India, 5:4, 2005.
STASSEN, L. Predicative Possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
TRAUGOTT.E. C. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In: ECKARDT, R.; JÄGER G.; VEENSTRA, T. (Eds.). Variation, Selection, Development--Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008b, p. 219-250.
TRAUGOTT, E. C. & TROUSDALE, G. G. Constructionalization and Constructional Change. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2013.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.30.2.808-842
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2021 Carolina Piechotta Martins Santos, Karen Sampaio Braga Alonso
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
e - ISSN 2237-2083
Licensed through Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional