Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Karin Camolese Vivanco
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Master's Dissertation |
| Press: | São Paulo. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas (FFLCH/SBD) |
| Defense date: | 2014-06-06 |
| Examining board members: |
Luciana Raccanello Storto;
Ana Lucia de Paula Muller;
Maria Filomena Spatti Sândalo
|
| Advisor: | Luciana Raccanello Storto |
| Abstract | |
This dissertation aims to clarify the status of relative clauses in Karitiana (Tupi-Arikém). Relative clauses are traditionally classified as externally (EHRC) or internally-headed (IHRC) and the main criterion for their differentiation is the heads position: EHRCs have their heads adjacent to the relative clause itself, whereas IHRCs have internal heads (DE VRIES, 2006, CULY, 1990). Another criterion is case-marking: if the head is marked with the case demanded by the matrix verb, the relative is an EHRC; if it is the one demanded by the embedded verb, it will be an IHRC (COLE, 1987). Within this framework, karitiana relative clauses are hard to classify: on one hand, the head always appears fronted to the left periphery (STORTO, 1999), which resembles the pattern found in EHRCS; on the other hand, the case-marking on the head is similar to IHRCs. In the light of Basilicos (1996) work, one can hypothesize that karitiana relative clauses are IHRCs with optional head frontalization. In this case, it is expected that relatives with non-fronted heads will be allowed in the language. An experiment was designed in order to verify if karitiana relatives could have non-fronted heads and 14 speakers were tested with an elicited production methodology. The results show that, although there is a preference for frontalization, non-fronted heads are possible in the language, since subject relatives OSV and object relatives SOtiV, OSV and SOV were produced. There are also cases of object relatives without the object focus morpheme , indicating that it is not indispensable in relative clause formation. These results bring karitiana relatives closer to IHRCs, because EHRCs cannot have their heads in any other positions than in the periphery of the clause. We also discuss some syntactic proposals for the word orders found in our experiment, claiming that those which assume head dislocation to Spec of CP and AspP face some problems, such as the derivation of SOtiV object relatives and ungrammatical structures with adverbs. Therefore, our proposal is that the frontalization of the head is an adjunction to AspP. Paradigms of relative clauses with adverbs also show that, in object relatives, the frontalization of the head occurs in two steps: first the head moves to Spec, vP and then it is further fronted to the position of adjunct of Spec, AspP. The first step is marked with on v and it underlies the syncretism of this morpheme, which is also present in object wh- questions and object focus constructions. Finally, the correlation between and the frontalization of the head is analyzed within the phase theory framework (CHOMSKY, 2000, 2001) and it is assumed that object movement to vPs edge is a syntactic requirement for further frontalization (AU) | |
| FAPESP's process: | 11/15927-7 - Relative clauses in Karitiana: an experimental study |
| Grantee: | Karin Camolese Vivanco |
| Support Opportunities: | Scholarships in Brazil - Master |