Email this article 
Sobre o licenciamento de “sequer” em interrogativas do português brasileiro / On the licencing of “sequer” in Brazilian Portuguese interrogatives
Abstract
Resumo: Neste texto, investigamos o comportamento do Item de Polaridade Negativa “sequer” em contexto de interrogação no português brasileiro (PB). Nosso objetivo com esta pesquisa é descrever a distribuição de “sequer” em tal ambiente e propor uma semântica para esse item, buscando explicar, sobretudo, o contraste existente entre sentenças como “ela sequer ligou?” e “*ela sequer ligou ou não?”. Para tanto, apresentamos algumas das principais propostas para lidar com IPNs encontradas na literatura, bem como alguns dos problemas que elas enfrentam, para, então, nos concentrarmos no licenciamento de IPNs em estruturas interrogativas e também no funcionamento de “sequer” nesse tipo de contexto. Concluímos, com a análise desse item, que interrogativas polares, de alternativa e de constituinte (wh) são ambientes propícios para o aparecimento de “sequer”, ao passo que questões de alternativa polar (A-não-A) bloqueiam sistematicamente a presença desse item. Como explicação para o comportamento observado, defendemos a hipótese da exaustividade forte elaborada por Guerzoni e Sharvit (2007) e demonstramos que “sequer” é bloqueado em interrogativas de alternativa polar como consequência de uma incompatibilidade entre propriedades do IPN e da estrutura inquisitiva.
Palavras-chave: itens de polaridade negativa; sentenças interrogativas; semântica.
Abstract: In this paper, we investigate the behavior of the negative polarity item (NPI) “sequer” in interrogative contexts in Brazilian Portuguese (BrP). Our aim with this inquiry is to describe the distribution of “sequer” in such contexts and to propose a semantic denotation for this item, searching mainly to explain the contrast between sentences like “ela sequer ligou?” and “*ela sequer ligou ou não?”. In order to do that, we first present some of the main proposals found in the literature to deal with NPIs, then we focus on the licensing of NPIs in interrogative sentences and also on how “sequer” works in this kind of context. We conclude with the “sequer” analysis that polar questions, alternative questions and constituent questions are a suitable environment for the emergence of “sequer”, while polar alternative questions (A-not-A) systematically block the presence of this item. As an explanation for the observed behavior, we defend the strong exhaustiveness requirement elaborated by Guerzoni and Sharvit (2007) and show that “sequer” is blocked in alternative polar questions as a consequence of an incompatibility between the properties of “sequer” and the inquisitive structure.
Keywords: negative polarity items; questions; semantics.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDF (Português (Brasil))References
ABELS, K. Who gives a damn about minimizers in questions? In: SEMANTICS AND LINGUISTIC THEORY, 13., 2003, Washington. Proceedings… Washington: Linguist Society of America, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v13i0.2895
CHIERCHIA, G. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language your views. Linguistic Inquiry, [S.l.], v. 37, n. 4, p. 535-590, 2006.
CHIERCHIA, G. Logic in grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697977.001.0001
DAYAL, V. Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199281268.001.0001
ECKARDT, R. Too poor to mention. In: MAIENBORN, Claudia; WÖLLSTEIN-LEISTEN, Angelika (Ed.). Events in Grammar. Tübingen, Niemeyer, 2005. p. 301-330.
ECKARDT, R.; SAILER, M. Beyond “any” and “ever”. In: CSIPAK, E.; ECKARDT, R. et al. (Ed.). Beyond ‘any’ and ‘ever’: new Explorations in Negative Polarity Sensitivity. Berlim; Boston: De Gruyter, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110305234.3
ECKARDT, R.; CSIPAK, E. Minimizers – Towards pragmatic licensing. In: CSIPAK, E.; ECKARDT, R. et al. (Ed.). Beyond ‘any’ and ‘ever’: new Explorations in Negative Polarity Sensitivity. Berlim; Boston: De Gruyter, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110305234.267
GIANAKKIDOU, A. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.23
GIANNAKIDOU, A. Subjunctive, habituality and negative polarity. In: In: SEMANTICS AND LINGUISTIC THEORY, 5., 1995, Ithaka. Proceedings… Ithaka, NY: Cornell University, 1995. p. 132-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v5i0.2703
GIANNAKIDOU, A. Licensing and Sensitivity in Polarity Items: from Downward Entailment to (Non)veridicality. In: CONFERENCE OF CHICAGO LINGUISTIC SOCIETY, 38., Chicago. Proceedings… Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 2002. v. 38, n. 2, p. 29-54
GIANNAKIDOU, A. Negative and Positive Polarity Items: Variation, Licensing, and Compositionality. In: MAIENBORN, C.; von HEUSINGER, C.; PORTNER, P. (Ed.). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2011. p. 1660-1712.
GUERZONI, E. Even-NPIs in yes-no questions. Natural Language Semantics, [S.l.], v. 12, n. 4, p. 319-343, 2004.
GUERZONI, E.; SHARVIT, D. A question of strength: On NPIs in interrogative clauses. Linguistics & Philosophy, [S.l.], v. 30, n. 3, p. 361-391, 2007.
HAMBLIN, C. L. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, [S.l.], v. 10, n. 1, p. 41-53, 1973.
HAN, C. Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions. Lingua, [S.l.], v. 112, p. 201-229, 2002.
HAN, C.; SIEGEL, L. Syntactic and semantic conditions on NPI licensing in questions. In: In: WEST COAST CONFERENCE IN FORMAL LINGUISTICS, v. 15, Irvine, CA. Proceedings… Irvine, CA: University of California, 1997. p. 177-191.
HEIM, I. A Note on negative polarity and downward entailingness. In: NORTH EAST LINGUISTIC SOCIETY, 14., Amherst, MA. Proceedings... Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association, 1984. p. 98-107.
ILARI, R. Locuções negativas polares: Reflexões sobre um tema de todo mundo. In: Linguística: Questões e Controvérsias. Uberaba: Fac. Integrada de Uberaba, 1984. p. 83-97. (Série estudos 10)
KADMON, N.; LANDMAN, F. Any. Linguistics & Philosophy, [S.l.], v. 16, n.4, p. 353-422, 1993. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985272
KLIMA, E. Negation in English. In: FODOR, J.; KATZ, J. (Ed.). The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1964. p. 246-323.
KRIFKA, M. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, [S.l.], v. 25, p. 209-257, 1995.
LADUSAW, W. A. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. 1979. Dissertation (Ph.D.) – University of Texas at Austin, Austin, 1979.
LADUSAW, W. A. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations: New York: Garland, 1980.
LINEBARGER, M. The Grammar of Negative Polarity. 1980 Dissertation (Ph.D.) – MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1980.
LINEBARGER, M. Negative Polarity and Grammatical Representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, [S.l.], v. 10, 3, p. 325-387, 1987.
MENDES DE SOUZA, L.; GRITTI, L. L.; PIRES DE OLIVEIRA, R. Um estudo sobre os itens de polaridade negativa no PB e seu licenciamento. Working Papers in Linguística, Florianópolis, v. 9, n. 2, p. 23-40, jul-dez, 2008.
NEGRI, L. Zona de fronteira: a delimitação entre a semântica e a pragmática sob a lente das expressões de polaridade negativa. 2006. Tese (Doutorado em Linguística) – Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, 2006.
NICOLAE, A. Questions with NPIs. Nat Lang Semantics, [S.l.], v. 23, n. 1, p. 21-76, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-014-9110-8
RIZZI, L. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris, 1982. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883718
ZWARTS, F. Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis, [S.l.], v. 25,
p. 286-312, 1995.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.27.2.1015-1049
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2019 Thayse Letícia Ferreira
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