Cover not available
Part of
Variation within and across Romance Languages: Selected papers from the 41st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Ottawa, 5–7 May 2011
Edited by Marie-Hélène Côté and Eric Mathieu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 333] 2014
► pp. 297–314

The role of the copula in the diachronic development of focus constructions 
in Portuguese

| Universidade Estadual de Campinas | CNPq

Old and Classic Portuguese had two positions for contrastive focus: one at the sentence initial position, followed by the verb, a ‘V2’ sort of pattern (XPVS), and one at the sentence final position, constituting the Romance post-verbal subject (V(XP)S). This paper analyzes the role of the copula in the innovations that occurred in Modern Portuguese focus structures: (a) the expansion of cleft constructions, from wh-clefts to that-clefts, (b) from inverse clefts to canonical clefts and (c) the reduction of that-clefts, a grammaticalization that affected only Brazilian Portuguese (BP). In European Portuguese (EP), XPVS and V(XP)S survive together with modern clefts while in BP clefts and reduced clefts took over the old constructions completely.

Published online: 17 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.333.20kat
References
Ambar, Manuela
1992 Para uma sintaxe da inversão sujeito-verbo em Português. Lisboa: Edições Colibri.Google Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar
2001 “On Inversion in Wh-questions in Romance”. Romance Inversion ed. by Alfke Hulke & Jean-Yves Pollock, 2–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana
2004 “Aspects of the Low IP Area”. The Structure of IP and CP: The cartography of syntactic structures 2 ed. by Luigi Rizzi, 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berlinck, Rosane de Andrade
2000 “Brazilian Portuguese VS Order: A diachronic analysis.” Brazilian Portuguese and the Null Subject Parameter ed. by Mary A. Kato & Esmeralda V. Negrão, 175–194. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert.Google Scholar
Casteleiro, João. M
1979 “Sintaxe e semântica das construções enfáticas com “é que””. Boletim de Filologia XXV.97–1166.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
2007 “Approaching UG from Below”. Interfaces + Recursion = Language? ed. by Uri Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Costa, João
1998 Word Order Variation: A constraint-based approach. The Hague: Holland Acedemic Graphics.Google Scholar
Costa, João & Ana Maria Martins
2011 “On Focus Movement in European Portuguese”. Probus 23.217–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duarte, M. Eugenia
1992 “A perda da ordem VS em interrogativas-Qu no Português do Brasil”. DELTA 8.37–52.Google Scholar
1993 “Do pronome nulo ao pronome pleno”. O Português Brasileiro: Uma viagem diacrônica ed. by Ian Roberts & Mary A. Kato, 107–128. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.Google Scholar
1995 A perda do princípio ‘Evite pronome’ no Português Brasileiro. Ph.D. dissertation, UNICAMP.
Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes & Kleanthes Grohmann
2005 Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1937 Analytic Syntax. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kato, Mary A, M. Luiza Braga, M. Aparecida Lopes-Rossi, & Nilmara Sikansi
1996 “As constuçoes-Q no Português Brasileiro”. Gramática do Português Falado ed. by Inegedore Villaça Koch, Vol. VI, 303–370. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.Google Scholar
Kato, Mary A
2007 “Free and Dependent Small Clauses in Brazilian Portuguese”. DELTA 23 (Especial): Homenagem a Lucia Lobato, 85–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kato, Mary A. & Sonia M.L. Cyrino
2010 “On semi-clefts and IP ellipsis in Portuguese”. Paper presented at the Linguistics Symposium on Romance Languages, 41, Ottawa, Canada, May 2011.
Kato, Mary A
2012 “Variation in Wh-Questions in Brazilian Portuguese”. Paper presented at The Second Cambridge Colloquium on the Histories of the Ibero-Romance Languages –Norman MacColl Symposium 2012.
Kato, Mary A. & Eugenia M. Duarte
2002 “A Diachronic Analysis of Brazilian Portuguese Wh-Questions”. Santa Barbara Portuguese Studies 6.326–339. University of California at Santa Barbara, Center for Portuguese Studies.Google Scholar
Kato, Mary A. & Esmeralda V. Negrão
2000 Brazilian Portuguese and the Null Subject Parameter. Frankfurt: Vervuert-IberoAmericana.Google Scholar
Kato, Mary A. & Eduardo Raposo
1996 “European and Brazilian Word Order: Questions, focus and topic constructions”. Aspects of Romance Linguistics ed. by Claudia Parodi, A. Carlos Quicoli, Mario Saltarelli & Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta, 267–278. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Kato, Mary A. & Ilza Ribeiro
2009 “Cleft Sentences from Old Portuguese to Modern Brazilian Portuguese”. Focus and Background in Romance Languages ed. by Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob, 123–154. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
2001 “A Framework for the Analysis of Cleft Constructions”. Linguistics 39.463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lopes-Rossi, M. Aparecida
1996 A sintaxe diacrônica das interrogativas-Q do Português. Ph.D. dissertation, UNICAMP.
Modesto, Marcelo
2001 As Construções Clivadas no Português do Brasil. São Paulo: Humanitas.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo
2004 Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ordoñez, Francisco & Antxon Olarrea
2006 “Microvariation in Caribbean-non Caribbean Spanish Interrogatives”. Probus 18.59–97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Resenes, Mariana S. de
2009 Sentenças Pseudo-Clivadas do Português Brasileiro. M.A. Thesis, Florianópolis, UFSC.
Ribeiro, Ilza
1995 “Evidence for a Verb-Second Phase in Old Portuguese”. Clause Structure and Language Change ed. by Adrian Battye & Ian Roberts, 110–139. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1997 “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery”. Elements of Grammar ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 281–338. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Ian Roberts
1989 “Complex Inversion in French”. Probus 1.1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan
1995 “An F Position in Western Romance”. Discourse Configurational Languages ed. by Katalin É. Kiss, 153–175. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar