On Free Small Clauses of Brazilian Portuguese Marcelo Amorim

On Free Small Clauses of Brazilian Portuguese
Marcelo Amorim Sibaldo (Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco)
The main goal of this paper is to describe the subjacent structure of Free Small Clauses (FSC)
in Brazilian Portuguese (BP). FSC are exclamative constructions formed by a juxtaposition of
a predicate followed by its subject without any morphological specification for tense, as in
(1), working as a predicative copular structure without copula.
(1)
a. Linda
a sua roupa! b. Uma droga aquele programa de televisão!
beautiful the your outfit
a drug that show
of television
“Your outfit is beautiful!”
“That TV show sucks!”
These constructions are widely productive in BP. Despite their surface seem smaller than a
full-fledged sentence, I propose that these structures are a TP-phase. Based on some tests and
data discussed below, I assume that (i) small clauses are configurational and nondirectional
(Den Dikken, 2006) and (ii) not only CP and v*P can be phases (against Chomsky, 2000 et
passim), adopting a Phase Extension framework (Den Dikken, 2006, 2007).
Thereby I propose that FSC are restricted by the following algorithms: (i) FSC must be
specific (cf. (2)); (ii) FSC predicates must be gradable and evaluative of individual level (cf.
(3)); and (iii) FSC (non-morphological) tense must be interpreted as present (cf. (4)).
(2)
a. *chato(s) menino(s)/ um menino qualquer/ nenhum menino/ poucos meninos!
boring(PL.)boy(s)/ a boy any
/ no
boy / few
boys
b. Chato esse menino! “This boy sucks!”
(3)
*Bêbada/ *grávida/ *motorista/ *dançando/ legal a Maria!
drunk / pregnant/ driver / dancing / nice the Maria
(4)
Linda a sua roupa! – “Your outfit is/ *was/ *will be beautiful”
Since (i) we can have subjects with quantifiers and negative polarity items (NPI) in predicate
position (cf. (5)), and (ii) we cannot have a locative PP or an adverb intervening between
predicate and the subject of a FSC (cf. (6)), I assume that both subject and predicate are in an
A-position. The fact that we cannot have a VP adverb intervening between the predicate and
the subject of a FSC (as in (7)) allows me to suggest that these structures are neither the result
of predicate raising over the subject nor of subject adjunction to the right, that is, FSC subject
and predicate seem to be in situ.
(5)
a. Um amor cada um de vocês!/
a’. Muito lindos todos esses seus sapatos!
a love each one of you
very beautiful all
these your shoes
“Each one of you is lovely!”/
“All of these shoes are very beautiful!”
b. Nem um pouco bonita a Maria!/ b’. Nada legal a sua irmã!
nor a little beautiful the Maria
nothing nice the your sister
“Maria is not even a little beautiful!”/
“Your sister is not any nice!”
(6)
a. *Lindas na igreja/ ontem as flores/ b. *Bonito na festa/ ontem o seu vestido
Pretty in.the church/yesterday the flowers Beautiful in.the party/yesterday your dress
a’. Lindas as flores na igreja/ ontem/ b’. Bonito seu vestido na festa/ ontem
Pretty the flowers in.the church/yesterday Beautiful your dress in.the party/ yesterday
“Flowers were pretty in the church yesterday!”/ “Your dress was beautiful yesterday”
(7)
a. Sempre linda a sua roupa! b. Sempre uma droga aquele programa!
always beautiful the your outfit
always a
drug that program
“Your clothes are always beautiful!” “That program is always shit!”
a’. *Bonita sempre a sua roupa./
b’. *Uma droga sempre aquele programa!
beautiful always the your outfit
a
drug always that program
When embedded in ECM verbs, supposed FSC can appear both in a subject-predicate and in
a predicate-subject order (cf. (8)), what does not happen when they are root sentences, in
which case they can only appear in the predicate-subject order (cf. (9)). This piece of
evidence suggests that FSC cannot be embedded so what we have in (8) is an ordinary small
clause, given that BP FSC seem to project TP since we can add a temporal adverb to it (cf.
(10)). Considering that we can have (11a) but not (11b), I assume that FSC are in fact a root
TP with no CP, that is, they are really “free”.
(8)
a. Eu achei [horrível o dia]!
b. A Maria achou [bonita a sua roupa]!
a’. Eu achei [o dia horrível]!
b’. A Maria achou [a sua roupa bonita]!
“I thought the day was awful!”
“Maria thought your outfit was pretty!”
(9)
a. *O dia horrível!
b. *A sua roupa bonita!
(10) a. Bonita a sua roupa ontem!
b. Muito lindo o dia hoje!
pretty your outfit yesterday
very beautiful the day today
“Your outfit was pretty yesterday!”
“The day is beautiful today!”
(11) a. Hoje eu acho que a sua roupai ‘tava [ ti bonita] ontem.
“Today I think that your outfit was pretty yesterday.”
b. *Hoje eu acho [bonita a sua roupa] ontem.
today I think beautiful the your outfit yesterday
Taking all these considerations into account, I assume that the FSC structure is the one
presented in (12). I claim that the erasing of copula in BP is only allowed in (12)
configuration, that is, a RP small clause emerged from a reverse predication, selected by a
root TP, assuming with Den Dikken (2006) a configurational and nondirectional approach for
small clauses.
(12) [TP T [RP PREDICATE [RELATOR [SUBJECT]]]
According to Den Dikken’s (2006, 2007) proposal C-T is not a set (cf. Chomsky, 2004),
which allows non-defective T to have its own ϕ-features, and TP can be a phase, via Phase
Extension (raising R to T), a framework that seems to be more suitable to explain the
empirical data discussed above. FSC derivation would thus occur as following: R selects the
subject as its complement and after that the predicate as its specifier. TP enters the derivation
and the RP head is raised to T. This movement triggers Phase Extension from RP to TP (Den
Dikken, 2006, 2007). Phase Extension solves problems related to the Phase Impenetrability
Condition. T enters into an Agree relation with the subject, since the predicate cannot count
for intervention effects as it has no person feature in its composition (cf. Maximization
Principle, Chomsky, 2001:15). Since the EPP feature is optional in Romance languages
(Nunes, 2007), the derivation stops in (13), with all uninterpretable features checked, and is
sent to spell-out.
(13)
TP
→ Phase-Φ
qp
T
RP
g
3
Ri
DegP
R’
5
2
uNUM: sing.
Predicate ti
DP
uPERS: 3a
Subject
uGEN: masc
uGEN: masc.
uNUM: sing.
iGEN: masc. iNUM: sing. iPERS: 3a uCase: Nom
If the analysis proposed here is on the right track, BP FSC could reinforce the evidence that
TP can also be considered a phase (and not only CP and v*P, against Chomsky, 2000 et
passim), as already proposed, in a different and independent way, in Gallego (2010) and
Gallego & Uriagereka (2006).
Selected references
CHOMSKY, N. Derivation by Phase. In: KENSTOWICZ, M. (Ed.). Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press, 2001. p. 1-52./ DIKKEN, M. den. Relators and Linkers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006./
DIKKEN, M. den. Phase Extension: Contours of a Theory of the Role of Head Movement in Phrasal Extraction.
Ms. CUNY, 2007./ GALLEGO, Á. Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010.