In:Studies on Variation in Portuguese
Edited by Pilar Barbosa, Maria da Conceição de Paiva and Celeste Rodrigues
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 14] 2017
► pp. 153–176
Chapter 6Variable use of strong preterites
A sociolinguistic and theoretical approach
Published online: 2 November 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.14.06bar
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.14.06bar
Abstract
This paper examines a particular case of variable syncretism in the Minho region in Portugal, involving the 1st person singular (1sg) and 3rd person singular (3sg) forms of “strong” preterits of the verbs estar ‘be-stative’, ter ‘have’, fazer ‘do’ and ser /ir ‘be’/‘go’. These forms can be levelled, affecting the 1st or the 3rd person. Fifty interviews from a socially stratified corpus of the relevant dialect were examined by running a mixed effect binominal analysis, which identified as main predictors the factors subject expression, verb and level of education. Moreover, there is a difference between estar/ter/fazer ‘be-stative/have/do’ and ser/ir ‘be/go’. In the latter case, only one form is used (the 3rd person form foi), while in the case of estar/ter/fazer ‘be-stative/have/do’ levelling can be realized by either the form for 1sg or 3sg. This inter-linguistic variation is analysed following the “late insertion” model of Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz, 1993). We develop an account of these agreement levelling effects that is based on the interaction between the internal syntax of strong preterites and the late insertion of underspecified functional Vocabulary Items. We propose a derivation of the different forms in the standard dialect and then we offer an analysis of levelling where intra-speaker variation is tied to the probabilistic application of feature deleting Impoverishment operations along the lines of Nevins and Parrott (2010). Inter-speaker variation is due to different choices as to which feature sets are subject to Impoverishment: the features for Person or T. For estar/ter/fazer ‘be-stative/have/do’ these two operations yield different outputs (in the case of ter, /teve/ and /tive/, respectively). For ser/ir ‘be/go’ the resulting forms are homophonous, namely /foj/ in both cases.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2. Corpus and coding
- 3.Results
- 4.Discussion and theoretical consequences
- 4.1Background assumptions
- 4.2Strong preterites in standard EP
- 4.3Variable syncretism
- 5.Final remarks
Notes References
References (23)
Bassani, I., & Lunguinho, M. (2011). Revisitando a flexão verbal do Português à luz da morfologia distribuída: Um estudo do presente, pretérito imperfeito e pretérito perfeito do indicativo. ReVEL, 5 (Special Issue). Retrieved from <[URL]>
Bonet, E. (1991). Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 289–324). Oxford: OUP.
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton & Co.
Guy, G. R. (1991). Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change, 3, 1–22.
Halle, M. (1997). Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In B. Bruening, Y. Kang, & M. McGinnis (Eds.), MITWPL 30: Papers at the interface (pp. 425–449). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111–176). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Harley, H. (2008). When is a syncretism more than a syncretism? Impoverishment, metasyncretism and underspecification. In D. Harbour, D. Adger, & S. Bejar (Eds.), Phi-features across modules and interfaces (pp. 251–294). Oxford: OUP.
Johnson, D. (2009). Getting off the GoldVarb Standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 359–383.
Marantz, Alec (1997). No escape from syntax: Donʹt try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(2), 201–225.
Nevins, A. (2007). The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 273.
Nevins, A. & Parrott, J. K. (2010). Variable rules meet impoverishment theory: Patterns of agreement levelling in English varieties. Lingua, 120, 1135–1159.
Noyer, R. (1998). Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In S. Lapointe, D. K. Brentari, & P. Farrell (Eds.), Morphology and its relation to Phonology and Syntax (pp. 264–285). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Oltra-Massuet, I. (2013). Variability and allomorphy in the morphosyntax of Catalan past perfective. In O. Matushanksy & A. Marantz (Eds.), Distributed morphology today – Morphemes for Morris Halle (pp.1–20). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
(1999). On the notion of theme vowel: A new approach to Catalan verbal morphology. (Unpublished master’s thesis). MIT.
Oltra-Massuet, I., & Arregi, K. (2005). Stress-by-structure in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 43–84.
Vivas, V. (2010). A alternância vocálica no Português: Regularidade e sistematização. Cadernos do NEMP, 1(1), 33–44.
Teixeira, G. (2012). As formas verbais regulares e simples do Português brasileiro: Uma proposta à luz da morfologia distribuída, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina. Retrieved from <[URL]>