Slide 1linguistics.arts.sfu.ca/nwav45/wp-content/uploads/2017/0… · PPT file · Web view......

*

NEW WAYS OF ANALYZING VARIATION 45Pachantsut | Spreading Roots | Simon Fraser University and University of VictoriaSegal Room (1400-1430) November 36, 2016, 11:45-12:45

GENERAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING VARIATION IN BRAZILIAN PORTUGUESE: THE SCALE OF PROMINENCE

Anthony J. Naro Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro [email protected]

Marta Scherre Universidade Federal do Esprito Santo and Universidade de Braslia [email protected]

*

CONTENTS

1. SUBJECT/VERB CONCORD IN BRAZILIAN PORTUGUESE IN THE THIRD-PERSON PLURAL

The initial studies in the 1970's and further research in the 1980's and 2000's (Naro & Lemle, 1976; Naro, 1981; Naro & Scherre, 1996; 2000; 2013; Scherre & Naro, 2010; 2014) concluded that:

some oppositional verb forms show more frequent use of concord than others

when there is less difference in phonetic realization of plural with respect to singular, use of non-agreeing forms is more frequent

when there is more difference in phonetic realization of plural with respect to singular, use of non-agreeing forms is less frequent

Phonic Salience Hierarchy: third-person plural (Naro, 1981: 75)

Table 1. Phonic Salience Hierarchy -- 70s Rio de Janeiro: semi-literate speakers (Naro, 1981: 77)

*

ClassExemplesWeight%nN1. Less salient1.aCome/comem eat.1114.6110/7551.bFala/falam speak.2630.0763/25401.cFaz/fazem make.3536.399/2732. More salient2.aD/do give.6865.2604/9272.b Comeu/comeramate.7872.9266/3652.cFalou/falaramspoke.8580.01160/1450

Salience or Tense?

no preterit forms on the lower level of the hierarchy (1a, 1b, 1c)

preterit is concentrated on the upper level of the hierarchy (2a, 2b, 2c)

led to doubts as to whether tense or salience was the more relevant category as an independent variable

alternative view: since the preterit is the predominant form of narrative foreground, and the imperfect and present are more typical of narrative background, greater attention to foregrounded sequences is the basis of greater use of concord in the preterit and lesser attention to backgrounded sequences is the basis of less use of concord in the present and imperfect.

The answer for subject/verb concord in third person plural

Table 2a. Results for third-person plural subject/verb concord in the 1980 sample from Rio de Janeiro: phonic salience and tense/mood as one variable (Scherre & Naro, 2010:167)

Indicative mood: Subjunctive mood:

present preterit present

and imperfectand imperfect

Salience

1a 181/ 418=43% 0.14 21/45=47% 0.17

1b 1122/1706=66% 0.36 28/42=67% 0.37

1c 91/ 271=71% 0.35

2a 584/ 717=82% 0.65

2b 209/258=81% 0.67

2c 475/ 553=86% 0.74568/634=90% 0.79

General conclusions for third-person plural concord

widespread frequent variation in Brazil, much less frequent variation in Portugal

historical origins in Europe, amplified in Brazil to a strong flow toward no marking

recent counterflow toward increased standard marking

salience is the controlling variable; apparent effect of tense is a consequence of biased distribution of tense with respect to salience

Phonic salience hierarchy, a cognitive and perceptual factor, and not tense/mood, a grammatical factor, is, in fact, the feature that governs variable use of concord in the third-person plural.

2. SUBJECT/VERB CONCORD IN BRAZILIAN PORTUGUESE IN THE FIRST-PERSON PLURAL

For the first-person plural with subject ns 'we', concord is generally categorical in European Portuguese (Rubio, 2012; Araujo, 2012).

In Brazilian Portuguese, it is extremely variable depending on several structural and social aspects.

Among the relevant social factors, we can mention: years of schooling, age group, sex/gender, position along the rural-urban continuum, and linguistic identity. (cf., for example, Bortoni-Ricardo, 1985; Coelho, 2006; Foeger, 2014; Lucchesi, Baxter & Silva, 2009; Mattos, 2013; Naro, Grski & Fernandes, 1999; Oushiro, 2015; Prandi, 2005; Rodrigues, 2007; Rubio, 2012; Zilles, Maya & Silva, 2000).

*

The 1980s: Naro, Grski & Fernandes (1999)

There are two first-person plural pronominal forms: ns 'we', derived directly from Latin pronominal nos, and a gente, derived from Latin nominal gens gentis 'tribe'

Four variants:

1) ns-with-mos, or ns with concord (ns falamos we speak`or `we spoke`): standard variant

2) ns-without-mos, or ns without concord (ns fala we speak): non-standard variant

3) a gente-without-mos, or a gente with concord (a gente fala we speak): emergent standard variant

4) a gente-with-mos, or a gente without concord (a gente falamos we spoke): non-standard variant

*

Table 3. Overall frequency of use of -mos inflection with ns and a gente in two age groups: sample of 64 speakers from the lower socioeconomic levels of Rio de Janeiro in the 80's (Naro, Grski & Fernandes,1999:201-202)

Agensa gente

6-20 years40% (374/935)16% (427/2,673)21+years 66% (609/924) 9% (219/2,384)

Phonic Salience Hierarchy: first-person plural (Adapted from Table 1 of Naro, Grski & Fernandes,1999:203)

1 unstressed in both forms - falava/falvamos we used to speak

2 stressed in one of the forms fala/falamos we speak`

- trouxe/trouxemos we brought`

3 stressed in both forms est/estamos we are`

- tem/temos we have`

4 stressed in both forms, and the singular form has a diphthong - partiu/partimos we left

- vai/vamos `we go`

- foi/fomos `we went` or

`we were`

5 stressed in both form, and the stressed vowel changes falou/falamos `we spoke`; /somoswe are`

Table 4. Relative weights for subject ns-with-mos vs. ns-without-mos: 64 speakers from the lower socioeconomic levels - Rio de Janeiro in the 1980s (Adapted from Table 2 of Naro, Grski & Fernandes, 1999:205)

Ages

FactorsOlder AdultsYounger AdultsYounger PeopleChildrenPHONIC SALIENCESig. 0.0Sig. 0.0Sig. 0.0Sig. 0.0Salience 2.21.07.14.13Salience 3.37.52.42.60Salience 4-5.87.93.90.82TENSESig. 0.76Sig. 0.34Sig. 0.0Sig. 0.0Present[.47][.40].25.13Preterit[.53][.60].75.87

*

Remarks

phonic salience is statistically significant and is chosen by VARBRUL in first place for all four age groups, with both frequencies and relative weights increasing progressively for each of the three levels of salience in each of the age groups

tense is statistically significant only for the two youngest age groups, although the raw frequencies for all four groups exhibit reasonably large differences in frequencies of actual use

Remarks

older two age groups: salience not tense is the significant independent variable because salience accounts for more of the overall variation; the effect of tense is a consequence of its distribution with respect to salience

younger two age groups: the tense variable makes its own contribution to the chances of realization of -mos, favoring the presence of -mos in the preterit and disfavoring it for other tenses

the basis for this change is decreased use of -mos in the present; the decrease is more pronounced in less salient verb forms and less pronounced in more salient verb forms

Table 5. Comparison of rate of use of -mos with subject ns in four verb forms: 64 speakers from the lower socioeconomic - Rio de Janeiro in the 1980s (Adapted from Table 3: Naro, Grski & Fernandes, 1999:207)

Ages

Verb formsAdultsYounger PeopleChildren

comeu/comemos ate100%85/8596.4%27/2897.7%43/44foi/fomos `were97.4%114/11795.2%20/21100.0%43/43vai/vamos `go94.1%95/10175.4%46/6154.8%23/42fala/falamos `eat 41.8%56/1366.1%8/1315.4%10/186

*

Two motivating factors and foreseeing the future

1) In regular verbs of all three conjugations the -mos form is ambiguous between present and preterit: comemos can be we eat' or 'we ate.

2) Salience results in concentration of -mos in the preterit in real world language use.

"It is possible to foresee a future period in which -mos may come to be categorically preterit and 0 categorically non-preterit in the 1st person plural. (Naro, Grski & Fernandes, 1999:210)

NOT QUITE RIGHT, at least not yet.

3. SUBJECT/VERB CONCORD IN BRAZILIAN PORTUGUESE IN THE FIRST-PERSON PLURAL: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM THE 21ST CENTURY

The future is here and it is time to see what is happening.

We examine four samples from the first decade and the current decade of the 21st century.

Time depths of about 20 and 30 years from the research on first-person plural concord of Naro, Grski and Fernandes (1999).

Main references: researchers directly involved

Benfica (2016) Masters thesis at Universidade Federal do Esprito Santo (Ufes)

Dettoni (2003) - Doctoral thesis at UnB

Foeger (2014) Masters thesis at Ufes

Mattos (2013) - Doctoral thesis at Universidade de Braslia (UnB)

Mendona (2010) Masters thesis at Ufes

Naro, Scherre, Foeger & Benfica (2014, in press) 1st Symposium on Variation in Portuguese Minho/Portugal

Scherre, Naro, Mattos, Foeger & Benfica (2014) NWAV 43 Chicago/USA

Scherre, Yacovenco & Naro (2015) III Congresso Internatacional de Lingustica Histrica Santiago de Compostela/Espanha

Scherre, Naro, Yacovenco, Mattos, Foeger & Benfica (2015) NWAV 44 Toronto/Canada

RECENT OVERVIEWS

Mendes, R. B., & Oushiro, L. (2015). Variable number agreement in Brazilian Portuguese: An overview. Language and Linguistic Compass, 9(9), 358-368.

Scherre, M. M. P., & Duarte, M. E. L. (2016). Main current processes of morphosyntactic variation. In L. Wetzels, S. Mennuzi & J. Costa (Eds.), The handbook of Portuguese linguistics (pp. 526-544). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

The four samples: the rural-urban continuum

Santa Leopoldina2013SoutheastBaixada Cuiabana 2000Center-WestGois2008

Center-WestVitria2000

SoutheastRural area in a mountainous area of the State of Esprito Santo

About 12,000 inhabitants, rural speech

32 speakers (male/female, four age groups, two schooling levels) 14 localities in the State of Mato Grosso (80% in urban area)

About 900,000 inhabitants, very marked urban speech

19 speakers (male/female,three age groups, four schooling levels)Several cities in the State of Gois (including the capital)

About6,000,000 inhabitants, urban speech with rural ties

55 speakers (male/female,three age groups, two schooling levels) Capital of the State of Esprito Santo

About 300,000 inhabitants, unmarkedurban speech

46 speakers (male/female, four age groups, three schooling levels)

*

Figure 1. Santa Leopoldina: mountain city in the State of Esprito Santo - Southeastern region

Available at: https://www.facebook.com/SantaLeopoldinaEs.

Accessed September 22, 2014.

Urban area

Rural area

Source: personal file (Foeger, 2010)

*

Figure 2. Cuiab: capital of State of Mato Grosso - Center-Western region

Available at: http://mochileiro.tur.br/cuiaba.htm. Accessed September 22, 2014.

*

Figure 3. Anpolis State of Gois, Center-Western region

Available at: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1198995&page=101.


*

Figure 4. Vitria: capital of State of Espirito Santo - Southeastern region

Available at: http://www.procurandoviagens.com/2012_08_01_archive.html.


*

Figure 5. Brazil: 5 regions, 26 states and the Federal District

In red, the Southeast, with Vitria and Santa Leopoldina, in the State of Esprito Santo

In purple, the Center West, with the State of Gois and Baixada Cuiabana, in the State of Mato Grosso

(Regions established by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics in accord with physical, human, cultural, social, and economic criteria.)

Available at: http://www.brasilescola.com/brasil/regioes-brasileiras.htm. Accessed September 22, 2014.

*

*

Benfica, Samine de Almeida. & Scherre, Maria Marta Pereira. (2013). Os ns da concordncia verbal na fala capixaba. Paper presented at II Congresso Nacional de Estudos Lingusticos, Universidade Federal do Esprito Santo, Oct. 24. Vitria sample

Dettoni, Raquel do Valle (2003). A concordncia de gnero na anfora pronominal: variao e mudana lingustica no dialeto da Baixada Cuiaba Mato Grosso. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade de Braslia, Braslia. (Baixada Cuiabana sample)

Foeger, Camila Candeias. (2014). A primeira pessoa do plural no portugus falado em Santa Leopoldina (Dissertao de Mestrado em Lingustica) Universidade Federal do Esprito Santo. (Santa Leopoldina sample)

Mattos, Shirley Eliany Rocha. (2013). Gois na primeira pessoa do plural. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade de Braslia. (Gois sample)

Mendona, Alexandre Kronemberg de. (2010). Ns e a gente em Vitria: anlise sociolingustica da fala capixaba. (Dissertao de Mestrado em Lingustica) Universidade Federal do Esprito Santo. (Vitria sample)

References on the four samples

*

*

The 21st century research

We will focus on three variants:

1) ns-with-mos, or ns with concord (ns moramos we live/lived; ns vamos `we go; ns fomos `we went; ns morvamos we used to live): traditional standard variant

2) ns-without-mos, or ns without concord (ns mora we live; ns morou we lived; ns vai `we go; ns foi we went; ns morava we used to live): non-standard variant, heavily stigmatized in urban areas, although widely used in rural areas, without stigmatization.

3) a gente-without-mos, or a gente with concord (a gente mora we live; a gente vai `we go; a gente foi `we went; a gente morava we used to live): emerging standard variant

*

Examples: in pink [square brackets], old standard ns-with-mos; in blue (parentheses), nonstandard stigmatized ns-without-mos; in green , emerging standard a-gente-without-mos

.. (ns toma) bastante cuidado, caixa bem tampada, no (deixa) gua no quintal, nada. s vezes, [ns], de vez em quando, [tamo] limpando o terreiro, pra no deixar acumular muita coisa... (...) que just depend on other people, to do somethingNow, to do our own part and they do theirs'

Examples: in green , emerging standard a-gente-without-mosin black {curly brackets}, stigmatized and very infrequent a-gente-with-mos.

... procurando (...) a l embaixo um moo... a ele perguntou... {a gente perguntamos} se ele conhecia o tio, tio z

[Vitria sample, more than 11 years of schooling, female, 15-25years old]

... ' looking for ... and down there a person so he asked {we asked} if he knew the guy, Uncle Joe'

Analysis of 21st century samples

We decided to code tense ambiguity explicitly as an independent variable, on the same footing with phonic salience, in order to compare quantitatively the variable effect of these categories as independent variables.

Tense ambiguity exists for some types of opposition and not for others. It is valid for the low salience variation in ns fala/ns falamos 'we speak because the marked -mos form can mean either present 'we speak' or past 'we spoke'. We refer to this situation as equal tense ambiguity and use the notation +ambig.

Analysis of 21st century samples

Tense ambiguity is not valid for the equally low salience variation in ns sabe/ns sabemos 'we know ' because the marked -mos form is unambiguously present. The past is soubemos 'we knew'. We refer to this situation as different tense ambiguity and use the notation -ambig.

We reduce salience to two levels. A more detailed analysis is not possible because it would contain many categories with few or no data due to uneven distributions. We thus have four combinations:

Salience and tense ambiguity: four combinations

[1] -salience, +ambiguity (low oppositional salience, equal tense ambiguity)

(a) fala/falamos 'we speak' as relevant present tense data tokens, without or with -mos, taking into account falamos meaning either 'we speak' or 'we spoke'.

(b) preterit tense does not exist in Portuguese in this configuration

[2] -salience, -ambiguity (low oppositional salience, different tense ambiguity)

(a)sabe/sabemos 'we know' as relevant present tense data tokens, without or with -mos, taking into account sabemos 'we know' versus soubemos 'we knew'.

(b)soube/soubemos 'we knew' as relevant past tense data tokens without or with -mos, taking into account sabemos 'we know' versus soubemos 'we knew'.

Salience and tense ambiguity: four combinations

[3] +salience, +ambiguity (high oppositional salience, equal tense ambiguity)

(a) sai/samos 'we leave' as relevant present tense data tokens, without or with -mos taking into account samos meaning 'we leave' or 'we left'

falou/falamos 'we spoke' as relevant preterit tense data tokens, without or with -mos, taking into account falamos meaning 'we speak' or 'we spoke

[4] +salience, -ambiguity (high oppositional salience, different tense ambiguity)

(a) vai/vamos 'we go' as relevant present tense data tokens, without or with -mos, taking into account vamos 'we go' versus fomos 'we went'.

(b) foi/fomos 'we went' as relevant preterit tense data tokens, without or with -mos, taking into account vamos 'we go' versus fomos 'we went'.

Remarks

It is important to bear in mind that our two binary features with four possible permutations exhibit highly uneven distributions.

In the preterit, one of the four permutations (-salience +ambiguity) simply does not exist.

In the present, one of the four permutations (+salience +ambiguity: sai/samos) exhibits very limited numbers of tokens (01 for SL; 03 for BC; 06 for GO; none for VIT).

Another permutation (-salience -ambiguity: sabe/sabemos; faz(i)/fazemos) exhibits relatively few data in the present (around 6 - 12% of the data)

We compare the effect of salience and tense ambiguity on rate of concord in the four new samples for preterit and present tense, first separately.

Remarks

In this discussion we use the terminology of Labov (1969 [2003]:241-243]):

Rule type How often rule operatesType I: categorical rule: 100% Type II: semi-categorical rule:95-99%Type III: variable rule:5-95%

Preterit is semi-categorically or categorically marked independently of salience and tense ambiguity in three of our four samples: Santa Leopoldina, Baixada Cuiabana Vitria (Tables 6a and 6b below).

Table 6a. Ns-with-mos vs. ns-without-mos in accord salience and tense ambiguity: preterit

Santa Leopoldina sample: 99.7% (286/287)+ambiguity-ambiguity-salient---100.0%(38/38)+salient99.5%(190/191)100.0%(58/58)

Baixada Cuiabana sample: 97.2% (67/71) +ambiguity-ambiguity-salient---94.4%(17/18)+salient97.8%(44/45)100.0%(8/8)

*

Table 6b. Ns-with-mos vs. ns-without-mos in accord salience and tense ambiguity: preterit

Gois sample: 86.0% (265/308)+ambiguity-ambiguity-salient---87.3%(48/55)+salient86.1%(167/194)84.7%(50/85)

Vitria sample: 97.9% (228/233)+ambiguity-ambiguity-salient---100.0%(32/32)+salient97.5%(158/162)97.4%(38/39)

*

Remarks

Marking with -mos in the preterit is in the top of the semi-categorical range at 97%-100%, with the exception of Gois at around 85%. Neither salience nor tense ambiguity appears to have any effect in the preterit in these four samples.

In Gois, lack of concord takes on the function of a marker of local identity (Mattos, 2013:123). As a Gois speaker put it with disarming sincerity: ns fala errado porque ns qu ... ns assim we speak wrong because we want to...we are like that.

Remarks

Table 7a. Ns-with-mos vs. ns-without-mos in accord salience and tense ambiguity: present tense

Santa Leopoldina sample: 41.7% (100/240)+ambiguity-ambiguity-salient7.0%(8/114)16.7%(3/18)+salient0.0%(0/1)81.3%(87/107)

Baixada Cuiabana sample: 56.5% (131/232) +ambiguity-ambiguity-salient24.7%(23/93)73.3%(11/15)+salient33.3%(1/3)79.3%(96/121)

*

Table 7b. Ns-with-mos vs. ns-without-mos in accord salience and tense ambiguity: present tense

Gois sample: 81.3% (139/171)+ambiguity-ambiguity-salient50.0%(16/32)80.0%(8/10)+salient33.3%(2/6)91.9%(113/132)

Vitria sample: 92.0% (161/175)+ambiguity-ambiguity-salient87.1%(27/31)90.5%(19/21)+salient----93.5%(115/123)

*

Remarks

As far as marking is concerned, +ambig works in the same direction as -sal, reducing use of marking, and -ambig works in the same direction as +sal, increasing use of marking. Both variables contribute to oppositional prominence of variation in the sense that +sal increases prominence of morphological opposition, while -ambig leads to increased prominence of semantic opposition.

We set out to determine whether salience or tense is the strongest variable in conditioning of use of concord in the first person plural. Our results show that in the preterit neither tense nor ambiguity has any effect. In the present, VARBRUL chooses salience in one sample, ambiguity in two samples, and no structural variable at all in one sample. Thus, conditioning is not uniform among the four communities. Each sample represents a different stage of the evolution toward standardization.

Remarks

With the distribution of data we have in the first-person plural, salience and tense ambiguity are, in fact, not empirically distinguishable in the analytical sense since their skewed distributions make them highly correlated.

Rather than viewing ambiguity and salience as rival independent variables, their distribution leads us to view them as two sides of the same coin: salience refers to the cognitive/perceptual distinctiveness of competing forms, while ambiguity refers to their functional roles in distinguishing tenses.

Remarks

As for the prediction of a "future period in which -mos may come to be categorically preterit," we see that at the moment, with subject ns, the preterit is semi-categorically marked with -mos, and the present is variably marked with -mos, principally in highly salient and non-ambiguous environments.

The foreseen future of -mos as a categorical preterit marker has not yet arrived for our four samples. There has been some progress in that direction compared to the state of affairs in the earlier Rio sample in that the preterit exhibits near categorical marking with -mos.

Nonetheless, the present also shows frequent -mos marking in high salience contexts, sometimes even reaching similar frequencies of marking.

The emergent first-person plural form a gente-without-mos

We turn now to a gente, a relatively new first-person plural form with nominal origins that, at the present, is fully grammaticalized and competing vigorously with the traditional pronominal form ns, directly derived from the corresponding Latin pronoun.

As in the earlier work, typical examples of the forms we will be considering, all with the meaning 'we used to be', are:

ns ramos / ns era

a gente era


Up to this point we have not been considering the imperfect tense because ambiguity is relevant only to the present and preterit tenses for purposes of subcategorization.

The imperfect is, however, important for reaching an understanding of the use of a gente and the whole process of change in the direction of less stigmatized, more standard forms in urban areas.


The opposition between forms with and without -mos in the imperfect is uniformly on the level of extremely low morphological salience, for both regular and irregular verbs of all three conjugations, with stress located two syllables back from the word-final position of the desinence.

The imperfect is uniformly -ambig since it is never ambiguous in form with respect to any other tense.


The relative position in the overall hierarchy of prominence of the imperfect, always -ambig, with respect to present +ambig is not clear a priori. It is lower on the scale of phonological salience, but higher on the scale of ambiguity. We view the position of imperfect and present +ambig in the hierarchy as essentially tied in the saliency hierarchy proposed by Naro, Gski and Fernandes (1999). In our tables, we always list the imperfect above present +ambig for consistency.

Before results of scale of prominence just proposed, we can see examples in next slide.

Examples: Salience and Tense ambiguity

*

Variants

Factorsnswith-mosns without-mos a gente without-mosImperfectns ramos `we used to bens era`we used to bea gente era`we used to bePresent +ambigns moramoswe livens morawe livea gente morawe livePresent -ambig salientns sabemoswe knowns sabewe knowa gente sabewe knowPresent -ambig +salientns vamos`we gons vai`we goa gente vai`we goPreteritns falamos we spokens fomos`we wentns falouwe spokens foi`we wenta gente falouwe spokea gente foi`we went

Scale of prominence for subject/verb concord in the first-person plural: phonic salience and tense ambiguity salience

For the first person, the relevant salience hierarchy involves both phonic salience, on level of morphological opposition, and tense ambiguity salience, on the level of meaning opposition. We have used the term 'prominence' to cover these two aspects.

In Table 8, we can see results of scale of prominence just proposed in a binary approaching (ns-with-mos vs. ns-without-mos), with five categories in this scale.

Table 8. Ns-with-mos vs. ns-without-mos in accord the scale of prominence: four samples in the 21st century

Samples

FactorsSanta Leopoldina47.6%386/811Baixada Cuiabana 49.3%216/438Gois

78.8%455/578Vitria

87.6%403/460Imperfect.0030.4%1/283.10212.5%17/136.09951.5%51/99.01326.9%14/52Present +ambig.0967.0%8/115.23725.0%24/96.18047.4%18/38.15087.1%27/31Present -ambig salient.23016.7%3/18.72773.3%11/15.48280.0%8/10.39990.5%19/21Present -ambig +salient.83181.3%87/107.73779.1%96/121.74491.9%113/123.50293.5%115/123Preterit.99899.7%287/288.97997.1%68/70.61686.0265/308.77297.9%228/233

*

Scale of prominence for subject/verb concord in the first-person plural: phonic salience and tense ambiguity salience

In this binary analysis, opposing ns-with-mos (marked standard variant) to ns-without-mos (unmarked non-standard variant) in accord the scale of prominence, generally, we see increasing marking, or use of ns-with-mos, as the scale of prominence increases, but each sample also shows peculiarities motivated by its position in the rural-urban continuum as well as by other social factors such as local identity (Mattos, 2013).

We turn now to an analysis of the distribution of the three frequently occurring realizations of the first-person plural listed above. In this discussion, we will not be examining concord directly as a variable rule, but we will instead look at the distribution of the resultant forms in our speech samples.

Table 9a. Ternary distribution in accord with the scale of prominence: Santa Leopoldina sample

*

Variants

FactorsNs-with-mos Ns-without-mos a gente without-mos

%n / N%n / N%n / NImperfect 0.21/55650.7282/55649.1273/556

Present +ambig 2.08/40726.3107/40771.7202/407

Present ambig salient 4.23/7220.815/7275.054/72

Present ambig +salient27.787/3146.420/31465.9207/314

Preterit70.3287/4080.81/40829.4120/408Total22.0386/175724.2425/175753.89461757

*

Table 9b. Ternary distribution in accord with the scale of prominence: Baixada Cuiabana sample

*

Variants

FactorsNs-with-mos Ns-without-mos a gente without-mos%n / N%n / N%n / NImperfect 6.717/25347.0119/25346.2117/253

Present +ambig 11.824/20335.572/20352.7107/203

Present ambig salient25.011/449.14/4465.929/44


Preterit72.368/942.12/9425.524/94Total27.4216/78928.1222/78945.5351/789

*

Table 9c. Ternary distribution in accord with the scale of prominence: Gois sample

*

Variants


Present +ambig 3.718/4844.120/48492.1446/484

Present ambig salient11.88/682.9 2/6885.358/68


Preterit39.5265/6716.443/67154.1363/671Total21.2455/21485.7123/214873.11570/2148

*

Table 9d. Ternary distribution in accord with the scale of prominence: Vitria sample

*

Variants


Present +ambig 7.727/3491.14/34991.1318/349

Present ambig salient18.419/1031.92/10379.682/103


Preterit65.3228/3491.45/34933.2116/349Total26.6403/15173.8 57/151769.71057/1517

*

Ternary distribution in accord the scale of prominence

The most important point for our line of reasoning is the fact that the imperfect and present +ambig, on the lower levels of the hierarchy, democratically accept one or both of the newer forms without -mos, ns-without-mos (non-standard), and a-gente-without-mos (emergent standard). And the preterit, on the other extremity of the hierarchy, rejects the older non-standard variant ns-without-mos. The exception here is Gois, where the non-standard variant ns-without-mos is used as a mark of local identity exactly in the most salient environment, as we just saw.

Two shifts in diachronic perspective

We thus have both diachronic and synchronic grounds for analyzing variability into two general sub-processes in the expression of first-person plural:

presence or absence of the -mos desinence;

2) use of a gente or ns in the unmarked environment.

This amounts to examining non-marking as a first variable process, separating off the non-marked forms ns-without-mos and a-gente-without-mos from the totality of all forms, and then separating a-gente-without-mos from the totality of unmarked forms as a second shift.

Table 10a. Frequencies for (1) variation in marking and (2) variation in pronoun without marking in accord the scale of prominence: Santa Leopoldina sample

Analysys

FactorsTotal withoutmos vs. total with-and-without-mosa gente without mos vs. total without mosImperfect99.8%555/55649.2%273/555Present +ambig98.0%399/40773.2%292/399Present -ambig salient95.8% 69/ 7278.3%54/69Present -ambig +salient72.3%227/31491.2%207/227Preterit29.7%121/40899.2%120/121Total78.0%1371/175769.0%946/1371

*

Table 10b. Frequencies for (1) variation in marking and (2) variation in pronoun without marking in accord the scale of prominence: Baixada Cuiabana sample

Analysys

FactorsTotal withoutmos vs. total with-and-without mos a gente withoutmos vs. total without mosImperfect93.3%236/25349.6%117/236Present +ambig88.2%179/20359.8%107/179Present -ambig salient75.0%33/4487.9%29/33Present -ambig +salient50.8%99/19574.7%74/99Preterit27.7% 26/9492.3%24/26Total72.6%573/78961.3%351/573

*

Table 10c. Frequencies for (1) variation in marking and (2) variation in pronoun without marking in accord the scale of prominence: Gois sample

Analysys


*

Table 10d. Frequencies for (1) variation in marking and (2) variation in pronoun without marking in accord the scale of prominence: Vitria sample

Analysys


*

The broad outline of our diachronic model for the first-person plural subject/concord

The heritage from Portugal for first-person plural consists of invariant ns with invariant -mos marking.

2) During the colonial period, marking with -mos of verbs with subject ns became variable in Brazil, creating ns-without-mos forms.

The biased distribution of tense with respect to salience, causes unmarked non-standard forms to become more frequent in low salience environments, predominantly the imperfect and the present, and marked forms became more frequent in high salience environments, predominantly the preterit.

*


3) This leads to a reanalysis in many varieties of variable control from salience to tense as the controlling variable. This has a result explicit marking of the previously unmarked preterit/present distinction in the first-person plural, although mos continues to be used variably in more salient present tense forms.

4) In a later standardization phase, beginning in the late twentieth century, the frankly non-standard forms in ns without -mos were variably replaced by emerging standard forms in a gente without-mos, predominantly in salient contexts, creating forms such as a gente vai/a gente and a gente foi/a gente falou.


The second shift to forms with subject a gente in unmarked forms leaves behind a significant amount of non-standard forms such as ns falava, ns fala, ns faz in less salient contexts, and produces emerging standard forms such as a gente falou/a gente foi and a gente vai/a gente primarily in more salient contexts.


However, since the second shift operates on the output of the first shift, that is, non-standard forms such as ns falava end ns fala,concentrated in less salient contexts, the new emerging standard forms concentrate in these samenon-salient context from a ternary point of view,including all of the forms, even though it is concentrated in the high salience portion of the unmarked domain.

These shifts can show relatively large scale exceptions if social forces, such as local identity, enter into the situation. Even so, the new forms can find acceptance, such as happened in Gois, as we have already noted.

The broad outline of our diachronic model for first-person plural subject/concord

The high frequencies shown for new a-gente-without-mos, ranging from 61.3% (BC) to 94.9% (VIT) of the set of unmarked forms in the second column of our proposed binary analysis, captures the strength of the shift toward standardization in contemporary Brazilian Portuguese.

As a result of the process outlined above the universe of standard forms of the preterit is expanded to include a new form without -mos, but with standard concord with the grammatically singular subject a gente.

Final remarks

Previous work has shown that in the third person, variable verb concord is governed by phonic salience of the singular/plural opposition. Although the resultant forms are strongly skewed with respect to tense, favoring marking in the preterit from a distributional point of view, so far tense has not supplanted, or even supplemented, salience in its governing role in third person plural marking.

Final remarks

For first person verb concord, the relevant salience-related governing principle is more complex, including both phonic salience and tense ambiguity. As in the third person, salience induces a skewed distribution with respect to tense, but certain forms are phonologically ambiguous between present and preterit.

For the first person, the relevant salience hierarchy involves both phonic salience, on the level of morphological opposition, and tense salience, on the level of meaning opposition. We have used the term 'prominence' to cover these two aspects.

Final remarks

The first-person plural shifts have a functional dimension not present in the third-person plural, with the creation of (still variable) explicit tense marking. Third-person plural marking, at least so far, remains a processing phenomenon governed by morpho-phonological factors.

In the third person, salience continues its leading role in marking. The skewed distribution with respect to tense has not yet led to any sort of variable reanalysis. In the first person, the operation of salience is influenced by tense.

Final remarks

We have been analyzing two shifts: (1) amplification of variable marking in the direction of less marking through use of zero desinence in both the third and first persons plural; in the first person there is a present/preterit dimension (2) restriction of variable marking through grammaticalization of a noun to a pronoun that governs the zero desinence in the first person and through increased plural marking in the third person, facilitated by increased use of preverbal subjects.

These shifts involve vernacularization in opposite directions with respect to the standard, although more salient contexts tend toward the standard in both.

Thank you!

Merci!

Obrigado!

Obrigada!

*

*

Benfica, Samine de Almeida. & Scherre, Maria Marta Pereira. (2013). Os ns da concordncia verbal na fala capixaba. Paper presented at II Congresso Nacional de Estudos Lingusticos, Universidade Federal do Esprito Santo, Oct. 24. Vitria sample

Dettoni, Raquel do Valle (2003). A concordncia de gnero na anfora pronominal: variao e mudana lingustica no dialeto da Baixada Cuiaba Mato Grosso. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade de Braslia, Braslia. (Baixada Cuiabana sample)

Foeger, Camila Candeias. (2014). A primeira pessoa do plural no portugus falado em Santa Leopoldina, 2014. 158 f. (Dissertao de Mestrado em Lingustica) Universidade Federal do Esprito Santo. (Santa Lepoldina sample)

Mattos, Shirley Eliany Rocha. (2013). Gois na primeira pessoa do plural. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade de Braslia. (Gois sample)

Mendona, Alexandre Kronemberg de. (2010). Ns e a gente em Vitria: anlise sociolingustica da fala capixaba. (Vitria sample)

References on the four samples

*

RECENT OVERVIEWS



OTHER REFERENCES

Araujo, S. S. de F. (2012). A concordncia verbal e sua importncia para os estudos sobre a formao do portugus brasileiro. Papia, 22(1), 91-110.

Benfica, S. de A. (2016). A concordncia verbal na fala de Vitria. (Masters thesis, Universidade Federal do Esprito Santo, Vitria, Brasil).

Benfica, S. de A., & Scherre, M. M. P. (2013). Os ns da concordncia verbal na fala capixaba. Paper presented at II Congresso Nacional de Estudos Lingusticos, Universidade Federal do Esprito Santo, Oct. 24-25.

Bortoni-Ricardo, S. M. (1985). The urbanization of rural dialect speakers A sociolinguistic study in Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press.

OTHER REFERENCES

Coelho, R. F. (2006). nis na fita! Duas variveis lingusticas numa vizinhana da periferia paulistana (O pronome de primeira pessoa do plural e a marcao de plural no verbo). (Masters thesis, Universidade de So Paulo, So Paulo, Brasil). Retrieved from: http://docslide.com.br/documents/rafael-ferreira-coelho-nois-na-fita-variacao-linguistica-na-periferia-paulistana.html.

Dettoni, R. do V. (2003). A concordncia de gnero na anfora pronominal: Variao e mudana lingustica no dialeto da Baixada Cuiabana Mato Grosso. (Doctoral thesis, Universidade de Braslia, Braslia, Brasil). Retrieved from: http://sinop.unemat.br/projetos/divalimt/teses/rachel_valle.pdf.

Foeger, C. C. (2014). A primeira pessoa do plural no portugus falado em Santa Leopoldina. (Masters thesis, Universidade Federal do Esprito Santo, Vitria, Brasil). Retrieved from: http://linguistica.ufes.br/pos-graduacao/PPGEL.

OTHER REFERENCES

Labov, W. (2003). Some Sociolinguistic Principles. In: Paulston, C. B. & Tucker, G. R. Sociolinguistics. The Essential Readings. Oxford/New York: Blackwell, pp. 234-250.

Lucchesi, D., Baxter, A., & Silva, J. A. A. da. (2009). A concordncia verbal. In D. Lucchesi, A. Baxter, & I. Ribeiro (Eds.), O portugus afro-brasileiro (pp. 331-371). Salvador: Editora da Universidade Federal da Bahia.

Mattos, S. E. R. (2013). Gois na primeira pessoa do plural. (Doctoral thesis, Universidade de Braslia, Braslia, Brasil). Retrieved from: http://repositorio.unb.br/handle/10482/13064.


OTHER REFERENCES

Mendona, A. K. (2010). Ns e a gente em Vitria: anlise sociolingustica da fala capixaba. (Masters thesis, Universidade Federal do Esprito Santo, Vitria, Brasil). Retrieved from: http://linguistica.ufes.br/pos-graduacao/PPGEL.

Naro, A. J. (1981). The social and structural dimensions of a syntactic change. Language, 57(1), 63-98.

Naro, A. J., Grski, E., & Fernandes, E. (1999). Change without change. Language Variation and Change, 11(2), 197-211.

Naro, A. J. & Lemle, M. (1976). Syntactic diffusion. In: Steever, S. B. et al. (Eds.). Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp.221-241.

Naro, A. J., Scherre, M. M. P. (1996). Disfluencies in the analysis of speech data. Language Variation ad Change, 8(1), 1-12.

OTHER REFERENCES

Naro, A. J., Scherre, M. M. P. (2000). Variable concord in Portuguese: the situation in Brazil and Portugal. In: McWhorter, J. (Ed.) Language change and language contact in pidgins and creoles. John Benjamins, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, pp.235-255.

Naro, A. J., Scherre, M. M. P. (2013). Remodeling the age variable: number concord in Brazilian Portuguese. Language Variation and Change, 25(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1017/S0954394512000269

Naro, A. J. & Scherre, M. M. P. Foeger, C., Benfica, S. (in press): Linguistic and social embedding of variable concord with 1st plural ns we in Brazil. In Barbosa, P., Paiva, C., Gonalves, C. Studies on variation in varieties of Portuguese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

OTHER REFERENCES

Oushiro, L. (2015). Identidade na pluralidade Avaliao, produo e percepo na cidade de So Paulo. (Doctoral thesis, Universidade de So Paulo, So Paulo, Brasil). Retrieved from: http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/8/8139/tde-15062015-104952/pt-br.php.

Prandi, M. R. (2005). Concordncia verbal no ensino fundamental: traos sociolingusticos na fronteira Brasil-Paraguai. (Masters thesis, Universidade de Braslia, Braslia, Brasil). Retrieved from: http://www.ppgl.unb.br/ppgl/catalogos/dissertacoes.

Rodrigues, A. C. S. (2007). Concordncia verbal, sociolingustica e histria do portugus brasileiro. Frum lingustico, 4(1), 115-145.

Rubio, C. F. (2012). Padres de concordncia verbal e alternncia pronominal no portugus brasileiro e portugus europeu: Um estudo comparativo. So Paulo: Cultura Acadmica.

OTHER REFERENCES


Scherre, M. M. P., & Naro, A. J. (2010). Perceptual vs. Grammatical constraints and social factors in subject-verb agreement in Brazilian Portuguese. Penn working papers in Linguistics - Selected papers from NWAV 38, 16.2, 165-171.

Scherre, M. M. P., & Naro, A. J. (2014). Sociolinguistic correlates of negative evaluation: Variable concord in Rio de Janeiro. Language Variation and Change, 26(3), 331-357. doi: 10.1017/S0954394514000143.

OTHER REFERENCES

Scherre, M. M. P., Naro, A. J. Foeger, C., & Benfica, S. (2014). Concord without concord: 1st plural pronoun ns we in Brazilian Portuguese. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 43. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and University of Illinois at Chicago.

Scherre, M. M. P., Yacavenco, L. & Naro, A. J. (2015). Paper presented at III Congresso Internacional de Lingustica Histrica Santiago de Campostela/Espanha.

Scherre, M. M. P., Yacovenco, L. C.; Naro, A. J. Mattos, S. Foeger, C., & Benfica, S. (2015). Functionality and Standardization: ns and a gente `we in Brazilian Portuguese. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 44. University of Toronto-Canada.

Zilles, A. M S., Maya, L, Z., & Silva, K. Q. (2000). A concordncia verbal com a primeira pessoa do plural. Organon, 14(28-29), 195-219.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Slide 1linguistics.arts.sfu.ca/nwav45/wp-content/uploads/2017/0… · PPT file · Web view......

Documents

Transcript of Slide 1linguistics.arts.sfu.ca/nwav45/wp-content/uploads/2017/0… · PPT file · Web view......