A pragmaticalização de capaz em português brasileiro e a codificação da atitude do falante / The pragmaticalization of capaz in Brazilian Portuguese and the codification of the speaker’s attitude

Patrícia Rodrigues; Marcus Vinicius Lunguinho

doi:10.17851/2237-2083.27.2.549-574

A pragmaticalização de capaz em português brasileiro e a codificação da atitude do falante / The pragmaticalization of capaz in Brazilian Portuguese and the codification of the speaker’s attitude

Patrícia Rodrigues, Marcus Vinicius Lunguinho

Abstract

Resumo: O objetivo deste trabalho é examinar as propriedades das construções do português brasileiro com a expressão capaz, como Capaz que a Maria viajou. Essas construções podem ter significados diferentes, dependendo do padrão de entoação a elas associado. Com uma entoação plana, capaz é interpretado como um modal epistêmico, enquanto com a acentuação em capaz, tal como falado na região sul do Brasil, essa expressão passa a ser interpretada como um marcador pragmático, expressando surpresa ou o ponto de vista contrário do falante. A hipótese defendida no trabalho é a de que essas leituras estão associadas a duas estruturas sintáticas distintas: as sentenças com capaz epistêmico são bioracionais, ao passo que as sentenças em que capaz funciona como marcador pragmático são mono-oracionais. Com base nas propostas de Speas e Tenny (2003) e de Hill (2007, 2014) acerca da existência de uma projeção associada ao ato de fala (denominada Speech Act Phrase – SAP) e visível para a computação sintática, propomos que capaz como um marcador pragmático é uma expressão que sofreu um processo de mudança linguística denominado pragmaticalização (DOSTIE, 2004) e, em consequência dessa mudança, é inserido diretamente no núcleo de SAP, projeção que faz a interface da sintaxe com a pragmática conversacional.

Palavras-chave: modalidade epistêmica; marcador pragmático; interface sintaxe-pragmática.

Abstract: The main aim of this paper is to examine the properties of Brazilian Portuguese constructions involving the expression capaz ‘capable’ (Capaz que a Maria viajou, literally ‘capable that Maria travelled’) which can have different meanings depending on the intonation pattern associated to it. With a flat intonation, capaz can be an epistemic modal; with an intonation stressing capaz, as spoken in Southern Brazil, it can be a pragmatic marker, expressing the speaker negative point of view or the speaker’s surprise. The hypothesis defended here is that these readings are related to two different structures. Constructions with epistemic capaz are treated as biclausal structures, whereas constructions with capaz functioning as a pragmatic marker are analyzed as monoclausal structures. Based on Speas and Tenny (2003) and Hill (2007, 2014), who assume the existence of a Speech Act Phrase (SAP), a projection associated with the speech act and visible for the syntactic computation, we propose that when it acts as a pragmatic marker, capaz is an expression that undergoes a process of linguistic change called pragmaticalization (DOSTIE, 2004) and, as a consequence, is externally merged into the head of SAP, a projection at the interface of syntax with conversational pragmatics.

Keywords: epistemic modality; pragmatic marker; syntax-pragmatics interface.

Keywords

modalidade epistêmica; marcador pragmático; interface sintaxe-pragmática; epistemic modality; pragmatic marker; syntax-pragmatics interface.

Full Text:

PDF (Português (Brasil))

References

AIKHENVALD, A. Y. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, [S.l.], v. 16, n. 3, p. 435-485, 2012.

BAKER, M. On the nature of the antiagreement effect: evidence from wh-in-situ in Ibibio. Linguistic Inquiry, [S.l.], v. 39, n. 4, p. 615-632, 2008.

BASSI, A.; GÖRSKI, E. M. A multifuncionalidade do item capaz na fala gaúcha: uma abordagem baseada no uso. Alfa, Araraquara, v. 58, n. 3, p. 593-622, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5794-1409-4

CASTROVIEJO, E.; OLTRA-MASSUET, I. On capacities and their epistemic extensions. In: TORTORA, C.; DEN DIKKEN, M.; MONTOYA, I.; O’NEILL, T. (Ed.). Romance Linguistics 2013. Selected Papers from the 43rd Symposium on Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2016a. p.59-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.9.04cas

CASTROVIEJO, E.; OLTRA-MASSUET, I. What does be capable tell us about capacities? An answer from Romance. In: MARTIN, F., PITTEROFF, M.; PROSS, T. (Ed.). Morphological, Syntactic, and Semantic Aspects of Dispositions. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart, 2016b. p. 30-51.

CASTROVIEJO, E.; OLTRA-MASSUET, I. Generic and action-dependent abilities in Spanish ‘Be capable’. Glossa, Leiden, v. 3, n. 1, p. 131-132, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.495

CINQUE, G. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

CINQUE, G.; RIZZI, L. The cartography of syntactic structures. In: HEINE, B.; NARROG, H. (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. p. 51-65.

CORR, A. V. Ibero-Romance and the Syntax of the Utterance. 2016. 294 f. Tese (Doutorado em Linguística) – Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge, 2016.

CRUSCHINA, S. The expression of evidentiality and epistemicity: Cases of grammaticalization in Italian and Sicilian. Probus, [S.l.], v. 27, n. 1, p. 1-31, 2015.

DeLANCEY, S. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 33, n. 3, p. 371-384, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1

DOSTIE, G. Pragmaticalisation et Marqueurs Discursifs: Analyse sémantique et traitement lexicographique. Bruxelas: De Boeck/Duculot, 2004.

FRASER, B. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, [S.l.], v. 6, n. 2, 167-190, 1996.

GIORGI, A. About the Speaker: Towards a syntax of indexicality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

GRÁNDEZ ÁVILA, M. A Functional Approach to the Subjectification of Facultative Meaning: The case of capaz in American Spanish. 2010. 37f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Linguística) – Department of Linguistics, University of Amsterdam, 2010.

HAEGEMAN, L.; HILL, V. The syntacticization of discourse. In: FOLLI, R.; TRUSWELL, R; SEVDALI, C. (Ed.). Syntax and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 370-390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683239.003.0018

HILL, V. Vocatives and the pragmatics-syntax interface. Lingua, [S.l.], v. 117, n. 2, p. 2077-2105, 2007.

HILL, V. Vocatives: How syntax meets with pragmatics. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2014.

HOLMBERG, A. The Syntax of yes and no. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701859.001.0001

HOPPER, P. J.; TRAUGOTT, E. C. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525

LEHMANN, C. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. 3. ed. Berlim: Language Science Press, 2015.

MIYAGAWA, S. Agreements that occur mainly in the main clause. In: AELBRECHT, L.; HAEGEMAN, L.; NYE, R. (Ed.). Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012. p. 79-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.190.04miy

MIYAGAWA, S. Agreement Beyond Phi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017.

NARROG, H. Modality, Subjectivity and Semantic Change. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/ 9780199694372.001.0001

RIZZI, L. The fine structure of the left periphery. In: HAEGEMAN, L. (Ed.). Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1997. p. 281-337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7

RIZZI, L. Notes on Cartography and further explanation. Probus, [S.l.], v. 25, n. 1, p. 197-226, 2013.

RIZZI, L.; BOCCI, G. The left periphery of the clause: primarily illustrated for Italian. In: EVERAERT, M.; VAN RIEMSDIJK, H. (Ed.). The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax. 2. ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2017. p. 2171-2200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom104

RIZZI, L.; CINQUE, G. Functional categories and syntactic theory. Annual Review of Linguistics, [S.l.], v. 2, n. 1, p. 139-163, 2016.

ROBERTS, I. Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching. In: TRAUGOTT, E. C.; TROUSDALE, G. (Ed.). Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010. p. 45-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90.05rob

ROBERTS, I.; ROUSSOU, A. Syntactic Change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486326

ROSS, J. R. On declarative sentences. In: JACOBS, R. A.; ROSENBAUM, P. S. (Ed.). Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1970. p. 222-272.

SIGURÐSSON, H. Á. Context-linked grammar. Language Sciences, [S.l.], v. 46, p. 175-188, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.010

SPEAS, M. Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic roles. Lingua, [S.l.], v. 114, n. 3, p. 255-276, 2004.

SPEAS, M.; TENNY, C. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In: Di SCIULLO, A.M. (Ed.). Asymmetry in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003. p. 315-344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.57.15spe

TRAUGOTT, E. C. On regularity in semantic change. Journal of Literary Semantics, [S.l.], v. 14, n. 3, p. 155-173, 1985.

TRAUGOTT, E. C. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, [S.l.], v. 65, n. 1, p. 31-55, 1989.

VINCENT, D. The journey of non-standard discourse markers in Quebec French: Networks based on exemplification. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, [S.l.], v. 6, n. 2, p. 188-210, 2005.

WILTSCHKO, M. Response particles beyond answering. In: BAILEY, L.; SHEEHAN, M. (Ed.). Order and Structure in Syntax I: Word order and syntactic structure. Berlim: Language Science Press, 2018. p. 241-279.

WILTSCHKO, M.; HEIM, J. The syntax of sentence peripheral discourse markers. A neo-performative analysis. In: KALTENBÖCK, G; KEIZER, E.; LOHMANN, A. (Ed.). Outside the Clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2016. p. 305-340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.11wil

ZU, Vera. Probing for conversation participants: the case of Jingpo. In: APARICIO TERRASA, H.; FRANICH, K.; FLINN, G.; PIETRASZKO, A.; VARDOMSKAYA, T. (Ed.). Proceedings of the 49th annual regional meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 2015. p. 379-389.

ZU, V. Discourse Participants and the Structural Representation of the Context. 2018. 279 f. Tese (Doutorado em Linguística) – Department of Linguistics, New York University, 2018.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.27.2.549-574