Amanda Thomas, University of Oxfordusers.ox.ac.uk/~mert3107/res/BPobjects.pdfCyrino, S M L, 2000....
1
Null objects and object pronouns in Portuguese in Salvador, Brazil Recipe register No evidence of overt strategy being used for food: 100% of 41 pronouns referring to food were null. The recipe register may be limited to certain regions of Brazil. Different available forms Null Overt Devised examples The two different overt forms (tonic pronouns and clitics) are used in distinct registers (informal versus formal) and are here treated together, in opposition to the null form. I use the term ‘null object’ with no commitment to a particular theoretical analysis. Conclusions and directions for future work • Regional variation may play a role in the realisation of some kinds of objects as null or overt pronouns, but further work is needed • Evidence for a split within the binary feature of ±animate, which does not correspond to a ±human division, in Brazilian Portuguese • Adapting the Animacy Hierarchy makes it a more powerful tool, able to capture the facts of more languages • Theoretical accounts of pronouns in BP must consider the semantic features of referents, which are sometimes unpredictable or not easily stated in terms of binary features Broad patterns similar to other varieties As expected, pronouns referring to −animate and −specific entities are overwhelmingly null. Trends in Portuguese as spoken in Salvador are similar to those seen in Rio de Janeiro. Next: consider previously under-studied variation within the binary ±animate feature, distinguishing it from ±human Selected references Cyrino, S M L, 2000. O objeto direto nulo no português brasileiro. In Estudos de gramática portuguesa, vol. 3, ed. by E Gärtner, C Hundte and A Schönberger, 61-73. Frankfurt am Main: TFM. Mayer, M, 1974. Frog, where are you? London: Collins. Piper, N, 2013. A sketch grammar of Meryam Mir. Munich: Lincom Europa. Schwenter, S A, and G Silva, 2002. Overt vs. Null Direct Objects in Spoken Brazilian Portuguese: A Semantic/Pragmatic Account. Hispania: 85.577-586. Schwenter, S A, and G Silva, 2003. Anaphoric Direct Objects in Spoken Brazilian Portuguese: Semantics and Pragmatics. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana: 1.99-123. Accounting for the use of null and overt pronoun forms Brazilian Portuguese third-person direct object pronouns can be null or overt. What determines when speakers use these different strategies? Previous accounts, based on data from 1980s Rio de Janeiro: • Binary features ±animate and ±specific. Pronouns referring to −animate and −specific nouns are more likely to be null • ‘Recipe register’. −Animate, −specific food referents frequently realised as overt pronouns, rather than the expected null (Schwenter & Silva 2003) • ±Animate category largely corresponds to ±human, except for possible instances of pets treated syntactically like humans Research question: Are these generalisations true for the present-day variety of Brazilian Portuguese spoken in Salvador, Bahia? New dataset • 54,000 word corpus, based on twenty interviews with native speakers from the Universidade Federal de Bahia, 2015 • Two components in each interview: general conversation and story-telling task • Picture book chosen to elicit a variety of different referents: human and various types of animals • Also elicited descriptions of recipes for studying the ‘recipe register’ 0 20 40 60 80 100 +Animate −Animate +Specific −Specific ±Animate and ±specific referents (%) Overt Null Amanda Thomas, University of Oxford Dog versus frog Strong evidence in favour of a distinction within non-humans in the +animate category: Dog – domestic Frog – non-domestic Examples from 2015 corpus 0 20 40 60 80 100 Domestic Non-domestic Domestic versus non-domestic animals (%) Overt Null Quando a gente comprou ele o nome dele era Ralph When the people bought him the name of.him was Ralph When we bought him, his name was Ralph. [email protected] | users.ox.ac.uk/~mert3107 Acknowledgements Thanks to Louise Mycock and Stephen Parkinson at the University of Oxford for supervising this project, and to Alan Baxter and all participants at the Universidade Federal de Bahia for their valuable assistance. Animacy Hierarchy A useful tool for cross-linguistic comparison which we can adapt to account for the Brazilian Portuguese pattern: 1st person > 2nd person > 3rd person > proper names > humans > domestic animals > non-domestic animals > inanimates A similar distinction between ‘high’ and ‘low’ animals has also been suggested for Australian languages e.g. Meryam Mir (Piper 2013). I also thank the Heath Harrison Travelling Scholarship, the Merton College Linguists’ Travel Grant and the Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics for funding this research and attendance at the Workshop. Ethical approval: University of Oxford SSH IDREC, reference number SSH_C1A_15_060. or Eu vi ela ontem I saw her yesterday I saw her yesterday. Eu a=vi ontem I her=saw yesterday I saw her yesterday. Eu já comprei o livro mas ainda não li ∅ I already bought the book but still NEG read ∅ I have already bought the book but I still haven’t read it. Aí o menino pega um dos sapos e leva Ø com ele Then the boy picks.up one of.the frogs and takes Ø with him Then the boy picks up one of the frogs and takes it with him.
-
Upload
trannguyet -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Amanda Thomas, University of Oxfordusers.ox.ac.uk/~mert3107/res/BPobjects.pdfCyrino, S M L, 2000....
Null objects and object pronouns in Portuguese in Salvador, Brazil
Recipe register
No evidence of overt strategy being used for food: 100% of 41 pronounsreferring to food were null.
The recipe register may be limited to certain regions of Brazil.
Different available formsNull
Overt
Devised examples
The two different overt forms (tonic pronouns and clitics) are used indistinct registers (informal versus formal) and are here treated together,in opposition to the null form. I use the term ‘null object’ with nocommitment to a particular theoretical analysis.
Conclusions and directions for future work
• Regional variation may play a role in the realisation of some kinds ofobjects as null or overt pronouns, but further work is needed
• Evidence for a split within the binary feature of ±animate, which doesnot correspond to a ±human division, in Brazilian Portuguese
• Adapting the Animacy Hierarchy makes it a more powerful tool, ableto capture the facts of more languages
• Theoretical accounts of pronouns in BP must consider the semanticfeatures of referents, which are sometimes unpredictable or not easilystated in terms of binary features
Broad patterns similar to other varieties
As expected, pronouns referring to −animate and −specific entities are overwhelmingly null.
Trends in Portuguese as spoken in Salvador are similar to those seen inRio de Janeiro.
Next: consider previously under-studied variation within the binary±animate feature, distinguishing it from ±human
Selected referencesCyrino, S M L, 2000. O objeto direto nulo no português brasileiro. In Estudos de
gramática portuguesa, vol. 3, ed. by E Gärtner, C Hundte and A Schönberger, 61-73.Frankfurt am Main: TFM.
Mayer, M, 1974. Frog, where are you? London: Collins.Piper, N, 2013. A sketch grammar of Meryam Mir. Munich: Lincom Europa.Schwenter, S A, and G Silva, 2002. Overt vs. Null Direct Objects in Spoken Brazilian
Portuguese: A Semantic/Pragmatic Account. Hispania: 85.577-586.Schwenter, S A, and G Silva, 2003. Anaphoric Direct Objects in Spoken Brazilian
Portuguese: Semantics and Pragmatics. Revista Internacional de LingüísticaIberoamericana: 1.99-123.
Accounting for the use of null and overt pronounforms
Brazilian Portuguese third-person direct object pronouns can be null orovert. What determines when speakers use these different strategies?
Previous accounts, based on data from 1980s Rio de Janeiro:
• Binary features ±animate and ±specific. Pronouns referring to−animate and −specific nouns are more likely to be null
• ‘Recipe register’. −Animate, −specific food referents frequentlyrealised as overt pronouns, rather than the expected null (Schwenter& Silva 2003)
• ±Animate category largely corresponds to ±human, except for possibleinstances of pets treated syntactically like humans
Research question: Are these generalisations true for the present-dayvariety of Brazilian Portuguese spoken in Salvador, Bahia?
New dataset
• 54,000 word corpus, based on twentyinterviews with native speakers from theUniversidade Federal de Bahia, 2015
• Two components in each interview: generalconversation and story-telling task
• Picture book chosen to elicit a variety ofdifferent referents: human and various typesof animals
• Also elicited descriptions of recipes forstudying the ‘recipe register’
0
20
40
60
80
100
+Animate −Animate +Specific −Specific
±Animate and ±specific referents (%)
Overt
Null
Amanda Thomas, University of Oxford
Dog versus frogStrong evidence in favour of a distinction within non-humans in the+animate category:
Dog – domestic
Frog – non-domestic
Examples from 2015 corpus
0
20
40
60
80
100
Domestic Non-domestic
Domestic versus non-domestic animals (%)
Overt
Null
Quando a gente comprou ele o nome dele era Ralph When the people bought him the name of.him was Ralph When we bought him, his name was Ralph.
[email protected] | users.ox.ac.uk/~mert3107
AcknowledgementsThanks to Louise Mycock and Stephen Parkinson at the University of Oxford forsupervising this project, and to Alan Baxter and all participants at the UniversidadeFederal de Bahia for their valuable assistance.
Animacy Hierarchy
A useful tool for cross-linguistic comparison which we can adapt toaccount for the Brazilian Portuguese pattern:
1st person > 2nd person > 3rd person > proper names > humans >domestic animals > non-domestic animals > inanimates
A similar distinction between ‘high’ and ‘low’ animals has also beensuggested for Australian languages e.g. Meryam Mir (Piper 2013).
I also thank the Heath Harrison Travelling Scholarship, theMerton College Linguists’ Travel Grant and the Faculty ofLinguistics, Philology and Phonetics for funding this researchand attendance at the Workshop.
Ethical approval: University of Oxford SSH IDREC, referencenumber SSH_C1A_15_060.
orEu vi ela ontem I saw her yesterday I saw her yesterday.
Eu a=vi ontem I her=saw yesterday I saw her yesterday.
Eu já comprei o livro mas ainda não li ∅ I already bought the book but still NEG read ∅ I have already bought the book but I still haven’t read it.
Aí o menino pega um dos sapos e leva Ø com ele Then the boy picks.up one of.the frogs and takes Ø with him Then the boy picks up one of the frogs and takes it with him.
![B B BeB B]Aí ......Created Date 6/4/2009 2:21:25 PM](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/610a1d3687b2cc2a1453012e/-b-b-beb-ba-created-date-642009-22125-pm.jpg)
