Focus Constructions in Brazilian Portuguese: A Reflection on the Principle of Non-Synonymy in Usage-Based Construction Grammar
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-460X202541267812Keywords:
usage-based construction grammar, focus constructions, variation, non-synonymyAbstract
The relationships between alternating constructions are treated with great caution by researchers linked to Construction Grammar in its various approaches. In this article, we investigate non-synonymy among three syntactic schemes of a subfamily of focus constructions in Brazilian Portuguese: the Canonical Cleft (SER X QUE Y), the SerQue (X É QUE Y), and the QUE (X QUE Y). Using authors such as Langacker (1987, 2000), Barlow and Kemmer (2000), Lambrecht (1994, 2001), Bybee (2006, 2010), Hilpert (2014), and Diessel (2015, 2019), among others, as references, we analyze how linguistic factors associated with the structure of information are interrelated with the alternation patterns observed in the use of these constructions, using as corpus a sample of Rio de Janeiro speech (Censo-1980, PEUL/UFRJ). To test the principle investigated, the occurrences in the corpus were statistically processed using a multinomial logistic regression model. The results indicate which factors most significantly limit the free interchangeability in the use of the studied constructions, as well as whether there are semantically closer constructions within this subfamily.
References
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (2000). Usage-Based Models of Language . Csli.
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M., Croft, W., Ellis, N., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning , 59 (1), 1-26.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language . Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bolinger, D. L. (1968). Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa , 2, 119-127.
Braga, M. L., Barbosa, E. (2009). Construções clivadas no português do Brasil sob uma abordagem funcionalista. Matraga , 16 , 173-196.
Braga, M. L., Leite de Oliveira, D., & Barbosa, E. M. (2013). Gradiência e variação nas construções de foco no português brasileiro. Caderno de Letras da UFF , 47 , 29-46.
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Boume, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69-94). Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
Brito, D. S. S. Construções de foco com palavra QU invariável: Uma abordagem construcionista baseada no uso. (2021). Tese (Doutorado em Linguística). Programa de Pós-Graduação em Linguística, Faculdade de Letras, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language , 82 (0), 711-733.
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage, and Cognition . Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representation. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49-69). Oxford University Press.
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for "allostructions". Constructions , 7(1), 0-0.
Cappelle, B. (2009). Can we factor out free choice? In A. Dufter, J. Fleischer, & G. Seiler (Eds.), Describing and Modeling Variation in Grammar (pp. 183-199). Mouton de Gruyter.
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Giveness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 27-55). Academic Press.
Croissant, Y. (2020). mlogit: Multinomial Logit Models (Version 1.1-1) [R packge].
Cruse, A. (2004). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics . Oxford University Press.
Delin, J. (1992). Properties of it-cleft presupposition. Journal of Semantics 9(4), pp. 289-306. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.4.289. » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.4.289
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based Construction Grammar. In E. Dabrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics . Mouton de Gruyter.
Diessel, H. (2019). The Language Network: How Language Structure is Shaped by Language Use . Cambridge University Press.
Goldberg, A. (1995). A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure . University of Chicago Press.
Guy, G. R., & Zilles, A. (2007). Sociolinguística Quantitativa: Instrumental de Análise . Parábola.
Haiman, J. (1980). The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language , 56 (3), pp. 515-540.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English . Longman.
Hasselgård, H. (2004). Adverbials in it -cleft constructions. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Papers from the 23rd International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 23) , (pp. 195-211). Rodopi.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and Its Application to English . Edinburgh University Press.
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics . Cambridge University Press.
Lambrecht, K. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics , 39 (3), 463-516.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: A Theory of Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents . Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vols. 1 & 2 ). Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2000). Conceptualization, Symbolization, and Grammar. In: M. Tomasello (Ed.). The New Psychology of Language Erlbaum, pp. 1-39.
Leite de Oliveira, D. (2019). O tratamento da variação em Gramática de Construções Baseada no Uso: A propósito das construções clivadas em português brasileiro. Diadorim , 21 (2), 62-82.
Levishina, N. (2015). How to do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis . John Benjamins.
Nida, E. (1958). Analysis of meaning and dictionary making. International Journal of American Linguistics , 24 (4), 279-292.
Perek, F. (2015). Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar . John Benjamins.
Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. (2015). Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language , 84 , 108-127.
Pierrehumbert, J. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In J. Bybee, & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency Effects and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure . John Benjamins.
Prince, E. (1978). A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language , 54 , 883-906.
Prince, E. (1981). Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics . Academic Press.
Prince, E. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. In W. Mann, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analysis of a Fund Raising Text (pp. 295-326). John Benjamins.
Sankoff, D., Tagliamonte, S. A., & Smith, E. (2005). Goldvarb X: A Multivariate Analysis Application . Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto; Department of Mathematics, University of Ottawa.
Simões, M. M. (2020). Construções de foco [SER X QUE Y], [X SER QUE Y] e [X QUE Y] no português brasileiro escrito: Uma análise baseada no uso . [dissertação de mestrado]. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.
Uhrig, P. (2015). Why the Principle of No Synonymy is Overrated. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik , 63 (3), 323-337.
Ullmann, S. (1964). Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meanings . Basil Blackwell.
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Constructions all the way everywhere: The Extending Scope of Construction Grammar (pp. 141-179). Mouton de Gruyter.
