| Portuguese VISLSentence AnalysisEdutainmentCorporaDictionariesMachine Translation |
Eckhard Bick
PORTUGUESE SYNTAX
7. Clause types
Ordinary clauses could be regarded as a kind of group - big "verb phrases" , with a verbal head governing clause level arguments and adjuncts, but here we will treat the term vp as the form category of complex predicators (i.e. verb chains with auxiliaries, cp. chapter 5).
Verb/predicator-containing clauses can be subdivided into finite (fcl) and non-finite (icl) clauses. In an fcl, the main verb (or the first auxiliary in a vp verb chain) is finite (i.e. tense-inflected), in an icl it is not. Non-finite clauses can be infinitive clauses, gerund clauses and participle clauses.
Clauses that are constituents of a larger syntactic unit (typically another clause or a pp), are called subclauses. In Portuguese, all finite subclauses are introduced and subordinated by a so-called complementizer (a conjunction, relative or interrogative), while non-finite subclauses usually are not.
Semantically, clauses can be described as predications, where something (the predicate) is predicated of something else (the subject) . In syntactic terms, the relation between subject and predicate is called a nexus. In ordinary Portuguese clauses, the nexus-link between predicate and subject is mediated by a (verbal) predicator. Predicators are part of what is predicated, contributing between next to no content (copula verbs linking predicatives, e.g. ser, estar) or all of the content (intransitive verbs, e.g. trabalhar, dormir).
In the examples, subjects are in italics, predicates are underlined and predicators are in bold face:
Ele era um herói nacional. (content-less copula predicating Cs predicative)
A criança dormia. (intransitive verb, predicate
and predicator are identical)
(a) Chegou.
(b) Chove.
(c) Começamos!
(d) Coma!
(e) Foi vencido.
Utterances like the above fit the form categories of either word (a-d) or group (e). However, since all 5 utterances are predications and feature predicators, it is tempting to also classify them as clauses. This, however, is in conflict with the first condition in our definition of a clause as (1) a multi-constituent nexus (2) featuring a predicator and/or a subordinator. The problem gets even worse if one reads enclitic or mesoclitic pronouns not as individual words, but as morphological parts of the verb. One solution is to make a distinction between the concepts of sentence and clause. A sentence, defined simply as the top node of any syntactic analysis, does allow v-only or vp-only predications, while a clause, with its multi-constituent condition, does not. Thus, the 5 predications above are sentences, but not clauses.
In the system advocated here, hyphenated enclitics will be regarded as syntactic constituents with their own branch in the syntactic tree, and in v-only or vp-only utterances the form-tag of clause (fcl) and the function tag of predicator (P) may be used optionally, creating an additional (non-branching!) node in the analysis:
as opposed to a non-clausal analysis:
Now, predicating nexus-relations can be found in other than subject-predicator structures, too. Object predicatives (object complements, Co) or argument adverbials, for instance, can predicate something of a direct object (Oacc), not the subject - introducing a secondary nexus into the same clause, making double use of the clause's predicator.
(a) Pôs a arma no chão. (Oacc - Ao)
(b) Chamou o projeto uma desgraça. (Oacc - Co)
(c) Bebe o chá quente! (Oacc - fCo)
Sometimes, however, predications are subordinated by a complementizer (clause header) - and thus, isolated from the parent clause's predicator - without providing an additional predicator. Here the concerning predication is a nexus between explicit and implicitly anaphoric material (the latter expressed in the parent clause), linked not by a predicator but by a subordinator.
Thus, (c) can be turned into a 2-clause construction by adding a subordinator:
For more discussion of clausality, see chapter 6.3. on pp's (com/sem as subordinator), chapter 5 on clause hierarchies in verb chains, and chapter 4 on subordination.
| symbol | category |
|
|
| cl | fcl, fs | finite (sub)clause
oração finita finit (led)sætning |
|
| icl, is | non-finite
(sub)clause
oração infinita infinit (led)sætning |
|
|
| acl, as | averbal (sub)clause
oração averbal averbal (led)sætning |
|
|
7.1. Finite subclauses
Finite subclauses cover a wide range of constituent functions. Most "cognitive" verbs, for instance, allow or even demand a que-clause (a) or a finite interrogative subclause (b) as direct object:
Using a traditional - word class analogous - typology, one can distinguish between finite subclauses that substitute for nouns (nominal subclauses), adjectives (attributive subclauses) or adverbs (adverbial subclauses), respectively:
7.1.1. Nominal finite subclauses (S:fcl, O:fcl, C:fcl, DP:fcl)
with absolute relative pronoun or adverb:
Quem cedo madruga .... (S)
Molesta quem aparecer. (Oacc)
Seja quem for (Cs)
Mostrava a pedra a quem quisesse ver. (DP)
O pai não veio para o aniversário dele, o que não o surpreendeu. (fCsta)
A proposta de que ele venha para aqui não me parece realista. (DP)
with interrogative pronoun or adverb:
Perguntou quem lhe mandaria o presente. (Oacc)
Não sei quando ele chegou. (Oacc)
With the completive conjunction que:
Soube que foi o único candidato. (Oacc)
Só foi avisado depois que o seu jatinho levantou vôo. (DAarg/DP)
Nem lhe parece estranho que o Pedro tenha comprado o sítio. (S)
Levou o projeto ao fim sem que ninguém lhe ajudasse. (DP)
7.1.2. Attributive finite subclauses (DN:fcl)
modifier function,
with postnominal relative pronoun or adverb:
O homem que encontrei ontem (DN)
A amiga com a
qual apareceu na festa (DN)
O ano quando
se casaram ... (DN)
Note that the relative clauses in these examples are all restrictive,
which is why there is no comma. So-called parenthetic relative clauses
are surrounded by commas, the difference corresponding to the difference
- in our terminology - between ordinary adnominal modifier (DN) and predicative
adnominal (DNc):
O professor, que
já não suportava o calor, terminou a aula cedo. (DNc)
argument function,
with se or interrogative pronoun/adverb:
Não há informações se vão
levar um proceso contra o coronel. (DNc)
7.1.3. Adverbial
finite subclauses (A:fcl)
adjunct function,
with relative adverbial or subordinating conjunction:
João não fez nada para que ela voltasse.
(fA, purpose)
Entraram na vila
quando amanheceu. (fA, time)
Desliga, amor, que tem gente na linha! (fA, cause)
Faz como quiseres! (fA, manner)
argument function, with relative adverb:
Meu avô mora onde o mato começa. (As,
argument adverbial)
7.2. Non-finite
subclauses (icl)
7.2.1. Infinitive
subclauses
Infinitives make up
for the "noun"-morphology of verbs. So infinitive-icl's are primarily used
where nouns would be used, as subjects, objects, complements and arguments
of prepositions, i.e. as what we in ch. 7.1.1 have called nominal subclauses.
Infinitive clauses
as clause level argument:
Retomar
o controle foi difícil. (S)
Manda o filho comprar leite. (Oacc, causative)
Viu o marido bater na mulher. (Oacc, perceptive "ACI")
Julgo o carro ser caro demais. (Oacc)
Não temos onde morar. (Oacc)
O problema é não sermos bastante fortes.
(Cs)
Chama isso fazer tábua rasa. (Co)
Infinitive clauses
as argument in pp
Era uma proposta
difícil a entender. (DP)
Para lhe ajudar, propôs outra solução.
(DP)
Para o amigo lhe ajudar, bastava uma palavra só.
(DP)
Pede para você ficar com ele. (DP)
A idéia de comprar outro carro não foi
nova (DP)
Levantou a pergunta de onde abrir banca. (DP)
Both infinitives and que-clauses
are very rare as direct arguments of nous, and might simply be cases where
a preposition has been "forgotten" (de in the last two examples).
Infinitive clauses
as adjunct adverbial
Veio lhe agradecer pessoalmente. (fA)
Foi à televisão recitar o documento.
(fA)
This construction is
restricted to movement verbs with a valency allowing (direction) argument
adverbials: ir, vir, correr, apressar-se etc.
7.2.2. Gerund subclauses
Gerunds account for
the "adverb"-morphology of verbs. So gerund-icl's are primarily used where
adverbs would be used, i.e. as adverbials (A) .
Most common are adverbial adjuncts (1), while argument function
is rare (2), apart from a special construction with ter/haver (3):
(1) Gerund clauses
as adjunct adverbial:
Falando do João, não quero convidá-lo. (fA)
(2a) Como imaginá-lo partilhando à vera a administração com outros? (Oacc)
(2b) Como imaginá-lo partilhando à vera a administração com outros? (Co)
Argument gerund-icl's
are restricted to so-called matrix verbs with a respective valency, reminiscent
of the ACI-constructions discussed in chapter 7.4. Here, too, the
"accusative" (lo) can either be regarded as direct object of the main
clause verb, or as subject of the subclause (gerund) verb. The latter reading
yields an Oacc:icl-reading (2b) with a surface subject (the accusative
pronoun) within the subclause, while the other provides for a Co:icl-reading
(2a) of a gerund clause with no surface subject:
(3) Gerund as
argument of ter/haver:
Tem gente morrendo
de fome no Brasil. (Oacc)
Tem o motorista esperando. (Oacc)
Sentences like these can be analysed as "accusative with gerund" constructions, too:
Another (fixed) clausal gerund construction occurs with the preposition com and sem.
These two prepositions can function as a kind of "complementizer" in creating
clause-like adverbials where the np that would ordinarily be the nominal
argument of the preposition (DP), is made ("subject"-) part of a clausal
nexus by gerund- pp- or ap- predicatives:
Lançaram a novela com um ator étnico estrelando. (DP)
Com a Guarda Civil patrulhando a cidade, não tinha onde se esconder. (DP)
In a "DP with gerund reading", like in the "accusative with gerund"
construction (2), we seem to have two analysis options of different depths,
one where the DP is regarded as one complete icl, and another one, where
the gerund clause is smaller and read as a predicative. This would turn
the DP into an acl with a subject and a subject complement (Cs or As),
the latter consisting of a gerund icl. However, the "big icl" analysis
(4a) is "flatter" and simpler than the acl analysis, and also supported
by the fact that the gerund alternates with a+INF-constructions the same
way gerund and a+INF alternate after estar - suggesting estar as missing [zero-constituent] auxiliary of an ordinary predicator: Com a
Guarda Civil a patrulhar a cidade, ....
(4a)
A third reading, that
of a postnominal gerund clause (DN:icl) is ruled out by a substituion test: *Com a Guarda Civil, não tinha onde esconder-se has a completely different meaning, and therefore, the gerund-icl cannot be part of an np with [a] Guarda Civil as head.
Finally, the preposition can be regarded as a subordinator in an
even larger gerund-icl, amounting to a flat clausal analysis for the whole
adverbial, without a pp- or DP-constituent. The prp-subordinated gerund-icl
is consistent with similar analyses for other (non-gerund) clause bodies
(cp. Chapter 6.3):
(4b)
7.2.3. Participle
subclauses
Participles are the
"adjective" variant of verbal morphology. In Portuguese, only past participles
are productive, the original present participle endings -ante, -ente
and -inte having been degraded to affix status. Attributively used past
participles (-ado and -ido) are inflected for gender and number, like
adjectives, and the prototypical (inflecting) participle-constructions
occur, like adjectives, primarily as postnominal modifiers (DN) and predicatives
(Cs, Co, fC, DNc) . Another, "verbal", use of participles is in
verb chains after ter (expressing tense), where there is no inflection.
Finally, participles occur in ablativus absolutus constructions
as pivot of a type of adverbial subclause.
7.2.3.1. Attributive
participles
Attributive participles
can completely turn into adjectives, and form ap's taking intensifier modifiers.
Dictionaries usually list these participles individually as adjectives,
and if used without heavy pp-dependents, ap-analyses are just fine (cp.
chapter 6.2):
However, if more dependents
- or even arguments - are added, an icl-analysis seems more and more natural.
One advantage is, that the parent-verb's valency structure - and with it,
clause level dependent terminology - can be borrowed.
(a)
(b)
7.2.3.2. Participles
in verb chains
Uninflected past participles
are used after ter to form the perfeito composto and mais-que-perfeito
composto tenses:
Participles also occur
in two types of passive verb chains, "action passive" (after ser)
and "state passive" (after estar). In both cases the participle has inflection
agreement with the subject. Participles in action passives (a) are more
verb-like, an agent of passive (the original subject in the active clause)
can be added (fApass), and the participles cannot be modified by DA-only-modifiers
like nada. Participles in state passives (b) can be modified by
DA-only-modifiers like nada, and adding an agent of passive seems odd.
Therefore, we will tag participles in action-passives as main verb (MV:v-pcp)
in a complex predicator (P:vp), while participles in state-passives will
be assigned the "adjectival" function of subject complement (Cs:v-pcp)
, or - if part of a group - head function in a Cs:ap.
S-agent + O-patient S-patient S-agent 7.2.3.3. Ablativus
absolutus
Ablativus absolutus
(the term used for Latin) or absolute participle constructions are adjunct
adverbial clauses featuring an inflecting past participle as predicator
and a patient subject. Like in state-passives (cp. 7.2.3.2), only
transitive and ergative verbs qualify for this construction, since only
they have patient arguments. If the ablativus absolutus is "unfolded"
into a finite active clause, its patient subject becomes direct
object (Oacc) for transitive verbs (a), but remains subject (S) for ergative
verbs (b).
(a)
arrancada
a chave (S) da vítima,
sumiu na mata
(b)
sumido o
bandido (S) na mata,
as vítimas se consolaram
--> o bandido (S) sumiu
na mata, e as vítimas se consolaram
Absolute participles
must not be confused with sentence initial participle ap's (or - if preferred
- participle clauses). The latter function as adjunct predicatives
(fC) , the former as adjunct adverbials (fA). Predicative
participle clauses (b) have the same subject as the main clause, and inflect
accordingly. Absolute participle clauses (a) have their own explicit subject,
and no agreement with the subject of the main clause.
(c)
7.3. Averbal clauses
(acl)
In our terminology
of Portuguese syntax, averbal (sub)clauses consist of a subordinator (or
complementizer) and a clause body featuring one or more clause level constituents,
but no predicator (which would make the clause an fcl or icl). As
a dummy function tag for the clause body, the tag SUB< (subordinator
argument) is used.
In the example (a),
the subordinator is a relative adverb, which has its own in-clause function
(fA) on top of the subordinator function - which is why no SUB-tag is used.
Conjunctions, on the other hand, are pure subordinators:
In most cases, the
acl clause-body has predicative function, and in (a/b) SUB< could be
replaced by a more functional Cs (quando [está] doente, embora
[esteja] doente), or - if one doesn't want to think of a zero-constituent
copula - fC (adjunct predicative).
It is due to this "predicativeness"
that the participle in (a3) is not treated as a predicator, but analogously
with doente (a1) and criança (a2). Cp. also the predicative
participle discussion in chapter 7.2.3.4.
Gerunds, too, can be
used predicatively in acl's:
Using the acl-analysis,
and not counting morrendo/cansado as predicators, is a useful way of
distinguishing between (c) and (c'), which would otherwise receive the
same analysis (P & icl):
Some relatives (como,
quanto, qual) and the conjunctions que and do_que can function
as comparative subordinators (SUBcom) and introduce
comparative acl's, both as clause (d1) and group (d2) constituents.
In both acl's, the
clause body tag SUB< has been replaced by more functional tags, fA (adjunct
adverbial) in (d1) and S (subject) in (d2), respectively. Such tags are,
however, controversial, since they depend on which "zero constituents"
and thus, on what kind of "unfolded" clause structure one imagines.
With a third kind of
subordinator, prepositions, the acl analysis also suggests itself as an
alternative solution for those special pp's - headed by com or sem
- that contain predications (discussed in chapter 6.3.):
Finally, acl's may
come handy in the top-level analysis of certain averbal utterances that
nevertheless feature a kind of clausal nexus. So far, we have been discussing
subordinated averbal clauses only, and here - in Portuguese - complementizers
(conjunctions, relatives or prepositions) are obligatory, as we assumed
in our definition of acl's. But what about averbal main clauses, as
they occur in, for instance, exclamations and headlines:
Like other Romance
or Germanic languages, Portuguese features some so-called matrix verbs
that govern infinitive-subclauses with independent subjects (i.e. different
from the matrix clause's) that take not nominative case, but accusative
(or, in some cases, dative) form. Thus, what semantically represents
the subclause subject is morphogically marked as object in the main
clause (matrix clause). This can syntactically be interpreted in two obvious
ways: (1) Either the surface constituent in question is really subject
of the subclause, but bears a morphological case mark for the whole
(object) subclause. (2) Or the surface constituent is really object
of the matrix clause, and the subclause functions as object complement,
with its own subject anaphoric and unexpressed at surface level.
In order to force case
on Portuguese nominal constituents, pronoun substitution is useful, as
in the following examples of infinitive clause candidates for direct object
function:
The transobjective
construction in (c-e) are more problematic: The two verb's subjects differ,
and the second verb's object can't be pronoun-fronted (*a vi-o bater),
suggesting an analysis with two main verbs, as in (b). On the other hand,
the second verb's subject is marked as object of the first, it is hyphen-linked
to the "wrong" verb, and even "frontable" (o vi bater na mulher).
(c) is what in Latin
is known as accusative cum infinitive (ACI), and is restricted to
sense-verbs: ver, ouvir, sentir. (d) is called a causative construction:
X causes (Y do/happen). Also causatives constitute a restricted class:
fazer, deixar, mandar. Analysing (c) and (d) the same way as (b),
we get:
An argument in favor of the Oacc:icl constituent is that it can be
replaced by an ordinary Oacc:fcl, like in the non-matrix-cases (b): Vi
que ele batia na mulher. Fizeram que eles trabalhassem nas minas. This
does, however, involve a change from accusative to nominative case for
the pronoun, and we could try another analysis, that gives full (syntactic)
credit to morphological form:
In this analysis, the
accusative pronoun functions as direct object in the matrix clause, and
the subclause functions as object complement.
In similar cases, with
a pp or ap object complement governed by a sense-verb or a causative verb,
this second analysis has the additional advantage of not needing to introduce
an averbal subclause without a complementizer or predicator. Compare:
(1) Object complement
analysis:
(2) Averbal clause
analysis:
On the other hand,
there seems to be a syntactic difference between ACI's (c) and causatives
(d) in that the object subclause can be substituted by the accusative pronoun
alone in (c), but not in (d) - though even in (c) this is semantically
problematic.
(c') Vi-a bater no
marido. - Vi-a.
(d') Fizeram/deixaram-nos
trabalhar nas minas. - *Fizeram/deixaram-nos.
This suggests that
the Co:icl analysis fits ACI's better, since it assigns the pronoun Oacc
function in the first place - while the Oacc:icl analysis yields a better
fit for causatives. If I see somebody hit her husband this implies I see
her, while making somebody work does not imply making him (like one makes,
for instance, a tool or cake). With deixar even the choice of verb changes
in the English translation: Letting someone work as opposed to leaving
someone. And it is this second reading of causatives we get with prototypical
"predicative material", pp's, adjectives or adverbs:
Fizeram-na famosa.
Deixaram-no sozinho/em
casa/sem comida.
Thus, for the two causatives
mentioned, if we choose the Oacc:fcl analysis for the make/let meaning,
and the Co:pp/adj reading for the make/leave meaning, we now have a syntactic
tool to distinguish between these two cases. However, while fazer only
allows Co-predicatives, both deixar and the ACI sense-verbs permit Ao-predicatives
(deixaram-no lá., vi-o aqui).
A third causative,
the order-verb mandar, behaves even more like ACI-verbs: the pronoun
substitution test (c-d) is positive, and Co-readings aren't even causative:
(1) O rei mandou um
soldado chamar a rainha. - O rei mandou o soldado.
(2) O rei mandou o
soldado sem armas. (Co)
(3) O rei mandou o
soldado à rainha. (Ao)
The causative effect
is stronger in (3) than in (2), since the soldier in (2)is without
arms, he does not become without arms, whereas the soldier in (3)
does end up with the queen. Therefore, um soldado in (1) could
well be tagged as direct object (Oacc) followed by an icl object predicative.
But which kind of object predicative, nominal (Co) as in (2), or adverbial
(Ao) as in (3)? For ACI-verbs one can imagine neutrally sensing (for instance,
watching) somebody who does something:
This doesn't work with mandar:
Rather, as a cause-effect
sequence the opposite is true: calling the queen is the purpose of sending
the soldier, and a purpose subclause should be analysed consistently as
adverbial no matter whether there is a causative matrix clause (2) or not.
Rather, one could use
the same clause level functions (Odat/Opiv and Oacc) that appear in the
concerning verbs' valency slots when filled with nominal material: permitir-proibir-aconselhar
ac. a alg.:
Transobjective constructions
can occur even without the mediating accusative (or dative):
If the "accusative" or
"dative" is an np, not a pronoun, it can also appear to the right of the
subclause predicator. This happens especially when the subclause main verb
is ergative (i.e. governs a patient subject), since these verbs have a
tendency to allow VO order:
Mediator pronouns,
on the other hand, can precede the matrix verb:
In fact, pronoun fronting
is a notational argument for not choosing an Oacc:icl analysis in
transobjective constructions, since this would result in an accusative/dative
subject to the left of a predicator whose subject it is not, a fact
that in CG notation could be marked by a double dependency arrow:
Also, the concerning
syntactic tree would involve an (avoidable) disjunct constituent:
Exercises:
7.4-1. Do quarto, ouvi
os outros saírem da casa.
7.4-2. O rei mandou
chamar os assaltantes.
7.4-3. O rei mandou
o delegado chamar os assaltantes.
7.4-4. O rei mandou
entrar os assaltantes.
ter
+ MV:v-pcp
estar
+ Cs:v-pcp
ser
+ MV:v-pcp
transitive
ergative
intransitive
