Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T13:16:19.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Some Special Adverbs, Word Order, and CP: Variation vs. Micro-Variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Manuela Ambar
Manuela Ambar*
Affiliation:
Universidade de Lisboa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For some adverbs, European and Brazilian Portuguese sharply differ, with consequences for the syntax of tense, quantification, word order, quantifier floating, wh-extraction, and clause structure. Evidence is provided for the architecture of the left, for remnant IP movement, and for the claim that “micro-” lexical differences between European and Brazilian Portuguese reduce to syntactic “macro-” variation: absence vs. presence of V-movement.

Résumé

Résumé

Par rapport à certains adverbes, le portugais d’Europe et du Brésil se différencient fortement, avec des conséquences pour la syntaxe du temps, la quantification, l’ordre des mots, le déplacement des quanitifieurs, le déplacement-Qu et la structure de la phrase. Des données sont ici présentées qui portent sur l’architecture de la périphérie gauche, le déplacement des IP résiduels et l’idée que les différences « micro- » lexicales entre le portugais d’Europe et du Brésil sont réductibles à la « macro- » variation syntaxique, à savoir l’absence versus la présence du mouvement de V.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 53 , Issue 2-3 , November 2008 , pp. 143 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ambar, Manuela. 1987. Flutuação do quantificador e subida da flexão. In Actas do 3o Encontró da Associação Portugesa, 17–38, Lisbon.Google Scholar
Ambar, Manuela. 1988. Para uma Sintaxe da Inversão Sujeito-Verbo em Português. Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de Lisboa.Google Scholar
Ambar, Manuela. 1989. Sobre a posição do sujeito, movimento do verbo e estrutura da frase. In Actas do 5o. Encontro da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 369–399. Lisbon.Google Scholar
Ambar, Manuela. 1997. Towards a definition of CP — evidence from TopicFocusP and EvaluativeP. Paper read at Going Romance 1997, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Ambar, Manuela. 1998. Inflected infinitives revisited: Genericity and single event. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 43:5–36.Google Scholar
Ambar, Manuela. 1999a. Infinitives vs. participles. In Semantic issues in Romance syntax, ed. Treviño, Estheia and Lema, José, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ambar, Manuela. 1999b. Aspects of the syntax of focus in Portuguese. In The grammar of focus, ed. Rebuschi, Georges and Tuller, Laurice, 23–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ambar, Manuela. 2002. Wh-questions and wh-exclamatives: Unifying mirror effects. In Romance languages and linguistic theory 2000: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 2000, ed. Beyssade, Claire, Bok-Bennema, Reineke, Drijkoningen, Frank, and Monachesi, Paola, 15–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ambar, Manuela. 2003. Wh-asymmetries. In Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol. 1: Syntax and semantics, ed. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, 209–249. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ambar, Manuela. 2005. Clefts and tense asymmetries. In UG and External Systems: Language, brain and computation, ed. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, 95–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.75.07ambGoogle Scholar
Ambar, Manuela, Gonzaga, Manuela, and Negrão, Esmeralda Vailati. 2004. Tense, quantification and clause structure in EP and BP: Evidence from a comparative study on sempre. In Romance languages and linguistic theory 2002: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 2000, ed. Bok-Bennema, Reineke, Hollebrandse, Bart, Kampers-Manhe, Brigitte, and Sleeman, Petra, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ambar, Manuela, and Pollock, Jean-Yves. 2002. Topic vs. comment in some subject inversion sentences in French and Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 1:119–138.Google Scholar
Ambar, Manuela, and Veloso, Rita. 2001. On the nature of wh-phrases — word order and wh-in-situ. Evidence from Portuguese, French, Hungarian and Tetum. In Romance languages and linguistic theory 1999: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 1999, ed. D’hulst, Yves, Rooryck, Johan, and Schroten, Jan, 1–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Antinucci, F., and Cinque, Guglielmo. 1977. Sull’ordine delle parole in italiano: l’emarginazione. Studi di Grammatica italaina 6:121–146. Accademoia della Crusca, Florence.Google Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar. 2000. On inversion in wh-questions in Romance. Ms., Universidade do Minho, Portugal.Google Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar, Müller, Ana, and Oliveira, F.. 2001. Nomes simples em posição de sujeito: questões sintáticas e semânticas. Paper read at Colóquio Português Europeu e Português Brasileiro, Universidade do Federaldo Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil.Google Scholar
Beghelli, F., and Stowell, T.. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of BACH and EVERY. In Ways of scope taking, ed. Szabolcsi, Anna, 71–109. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Brito, Ana Maria. 2001. Clause structure, subject positions and verb movement: About the position of sempre in European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese. In Romance languages and linguistic theory 1999: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 1999, ed. D’hulst, Yves, Rooryck, Johan, and Schroten, Jan, 63–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael J., 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Costa, J., and Silva, C. Figueiredo. 2001. Ordern VS e sujeito nulo em português europeu e em português brasileiro. Paper read at Colóquio Português Europeu e Português Brasileiro, Universidade do Federaldo Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 1996. Modularity and X0/XP asymmetry. Linguistic Analysis 26:1–26.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 1999. Local asymmetry. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35:23–67.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 2001. P and the operator shell. Paper read at Incontro di grammatica generativa (IGG), Trieste, Italy.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria. 2005. Asymmetry in morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Duarte, M. Eugenia. 1995. A perda do princípio ‘Evite Pronome’ no português brasileiro. Doctoral dissertation, University of Campinas.Google Scholar
Duarte, I. 2000. Sobre Interrogativas-Q em Português Europeu e Português Brasileiro. Ms., Universidade de Lisboa.Google Scholar
Galves, Charlotte. 1993. O enfraquecimento da concordância no português brasileiro. In Português Brasileiro: urna Viagem Diacrónica, ed. Roberts, Ian and Kato, Mary, 387–425. Campinas: Editora da UNICAMP.Google Scholar
Galves, Charlotte. 1998. Tópicos e sujeitos, pronomes e concordancia no Português do Brasil. Cadernos de Estudos linguísticos 34:19–32.Google Scholar
Isac, Daniela. 2004. Focus on negative concord. In Romance languages and linguistic theory 2002: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 2000, ed. Bok-Bennema, Reineke, Hollebrandse, Bart, Kampers-Manhe, Brigitte, and Sleeman, Petra, 119–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kato, Mary A., and Raposo, Eduardo. 1996. European and Brazilian Portuguese word order: Questions, focus and topic constructions. In Aspects of Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance languages XXIV, ed. Parodi, Claudia, Quicoli, Carlos, Saltarelli, Mario, and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, 267–277. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1998. Overt vs. covert amovements. Syntax 1:128–191.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2005. Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, ed. Cinque, Guglielmo and Kayne, Richard S., 3–69. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S., and Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1978. Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity, and Move NP in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9:595–621.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S., and Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1998. New thoughts on stylistic inversion. Paper read at Word Order in Romance, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Lopes Rossi, M. 1996. A Sintaxe Diacrònica das Interrogativas-Q do Português. Doctoral dissertation, UNICAMP, Brasil.Google Scholar
Martins, Ana Maria. 1994. Clíticos na História do Português. Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de Lisboa.Google Scholar
Matos, G., and Cyrino, Sonia. 2001. Elipse de SV no aportuguês brasileiro e no português europeu. Paper read at Colóquio Português Europeu e Português Brasileiro, Universidade do Federaldo Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil.Google Scholar
Mioto, Carlos. 1994. As interrogações no Português Brasileiro e o critério-WH. Letras de Hoje 96:19–33.Google Scholar
Negrão, Esmeralda Vailati. 2001. The scopai properties of distributive quantifier phrases in Brazilian Portuguese. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 25: The Proceedings of SULA 1 (The Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas), ed. Kim, Ji-Yung and Werle, Adam, 81–85.Google Scholar
Negrão, Esmeralda Vailati, and Viotti, E.. 2000. Brazilian Portuguese as a discourse-oriented language. In Brazilian Portuguese and the null subject parameter, ed. Kato, Mary A. and Negrão, Esmeralda Vailati, 97–116. Frankfurt: Editorial Vervuert/Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo, and Martins, Ana Maria. 2001. Infinitivos obrigatoriamente flexionados em ambientes de opcionalidade. Paper read at Colóquio Português Europeu e Português Brasileiro, Universidade do Federaldo Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil.Google Scholar
Obenauer, H.-G. 1994. Aspects de la syntaxe A-barre. Doctoral dissertation, Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Peres, João Andrade, and Negrão, Esmeralda Vailati. 2001. Algumas propriedades das construções negativas do português brasileiro e do português europeu. Paper read at Colóquio Português Europeu e Português Brasileiro, Universidade do Federaldo Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David, and Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael J., 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David, and Torrego, Esther. 2004. The sytax of valuation and the interpretability of features. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Massachusetts at Boston.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves, Munaro, Nicola, and Poletto, C., 1999. Eppur si muove! On comparing French, Portuguese, and Bellunese wh-movement. Ms., Université de Picardie à Amiens and University of Padua.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1996. Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Parameters and functional heads: Essays in comparative syntax, ed. Belletti, Adriana and Rizzi, Luigi, 63–90. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative syntax, ed. Haegeman, Liliane, 281–337. Kluwer: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Speas, Peggy, and Tenny, Carol L.. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol. 1: Syntax and semantics, ed. Maria|Di Sciullo, Anna, 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–451.Google Scholar
Vlach, Frank. 1993. Temporal adverbials, tenses and the perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy 16:231–283.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar