Cover not available
Part of
Language Change in the 20th Century: Exploring micro-diachronic evolutions in Romance languages
Edited by Salvador Pons Bordería and Shima Salameh Jiménez
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 340] 2024
► pp. 261–289

Chapter 9
Constructional changes in Brazilian Portuguese in the 20th century

Two cases of linguistic deletion

| Universidade Católica Portuguesa
This chapter analyzes two constructional changes by deletion of linguistic elements in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) in the 20th century, namely, the null clitic se constructions (specifically, reflexive, reciprocal, middle, anticausative, passive, and impersonal constructions) and the chopping relative construction, as two relevant manifestations of the recent standardization of the BP variety diverging from European Portuguese (EP). Based on a usage-feature and profile-based analysis and adopting a sociocognitive view of language, especially Cognitive Grammar, this study shows that the deletion of the clitic se conveys a shift to a nonenergetic, absolute construal of the event, and that the deletion of the preposition correlates with the grammaticalization of the relative pronoun que and highlights the accessibility of the nominal antecedent. Three contributions to research on language change are stressed: changes by deletion generate new constructions with their own meanings; synchronic constructional alternation, such as the one existing in BP between overt and null se constructions and the one already nonexistent in BP but existing in EP between pied-piping and chopping constructions, allows simulation of the diachronic constructional change in real time; and successful media from the mid-20th century onward, such as TV Globo for the huge Brazilian population, play a central role in language change and standardization.
Keywords: constructional change, standardization, Cognitive Grammar, construal, grammaticalization, ellipsis, se constructions, relative constructions, TV Globo, Portuguese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Portuguese and the standardization of Brazilian Portuguese: Between exonormative and endonormative standardization
  • 3.Constructional changes by deletion: Mere morphosyntactic deletion or emergence of new constructions?
  • 4.Clitic se deletion: Null se constructions
    • 4.1The alternation between overt and null se constructions
    • 4.2Changes in se constructions and the new null se construction
  • 5.The deletion of the preposition in relative clauses: The chopping construction
    • 5.1Three prepositional relative constructions
    • 5.2The alternation between pied-piping and chopping relative constructions
    • 5.3The conventionalization of the noncanonical chopping relative construction
  • 6.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 5 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.340.09soa
References (83)
References
Afonso, S., & Soares da Silva, A. (submitted). Alternating (socio)linguistic factors in the choice of null and overt se constructions in Brazilian Portuguese. Linguistics Vanguard. Special issue: What are alternations and how should we study them?
Aguiar e Silva, V. 2007. Ilusões e desilusões sobre a política da língua portuguesa [Illusions and disillusions about the policy of the Portuguese language]. In M. Gama (Ed.), A Política da Língua Portuguesa (pp. 13–26). Universidade do Minho.Google Scholar
Alexandre, N. 2000. A estratégia resumptiva em relativas restritivas do Português Europeu [The resumptive strategy in restrictive relative clauses in European Portuguese]. MA dissertation. Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa.Google Scholar
Alexandre, N., & Hagemeijer, T. 2013. Estratégias de relativização de PPs no mundo luso-atlântico: Crioulos de base lexical portuguesa e variedades do português [PP relativization strategies in the Luso-Atlantic world: Portuguese lexically based Creoles and varieties of Portuguese]. In M. D. Moura, & M. A. Sibaldo (Eds.), Para a história do português brasileiro, Volume III – Sintaxe comparativa entre o português brasileiro e línguas crioulas de base lexical portuguesa (pp. 49–71). EDUFAL.Google Scholar
Allan, K., & Robinson, J. A. (Eds.). 2012. Current methods in Historical Semantics. De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Álvarez López, L., Gonçalves, P., & Avelar, J. (Eds.). 2018. The Portuguese Language Continuum in Africa and Brazil. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arden, M. 2015. Inszenierte und elaborierte Mündlichkeit bei TV Globo: Zur soziostilistischen Modellierung morphosyntaktischer Variablen des brasilianischen Portugiesisch. Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. 1991. The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 443–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arim, E., Ramiro, M., & Freitas, T. 2005. Mudança em curso e os média: O caso das relativas [Ongoing change and the Media: The case of relative clauses]. In M. H. Mateus, & F. B. Nascimento (Eds.), A Língua Portuguesa em Mudança (pp. 67–80). Editora Caminho.Google Scholar
Bagno, M. 1999. Preconceito Lingüístico: O que é, como se faz [Linguistic prejudice: What is it, how is it done]. Edições Loyola.Google Scholar
2000. Dramática da Língua Portuguesa: Tradição gramatical, mídia e exclusão social [Dramatics of the Portuguese language: Grammatical tradition, Media and social exclusion]. Edições Loyola.Google Scholar
2001. Português ou Brasileiro? Um convite à pesquisa [Portuguese or Brazilian? An invitation to research]. Parábola Editorial.Google Scholar
Brito, A. M. 1991. A sintaxe das orações relativas em Português [The syntax of relative clauses in Portuguese]. INIC.Google Scholar
1995. As orações relativas restritivas nas variantes culta e oral em quatro línguas românicas, com incidência especial em português [The restrictive relative clauses in the educated and oral variants in four Romance languages, with special focus on Portuguese]. Lusorama, 27, 70–81.Google Scholar
Camacho, R. 2013. Construções relativas nas variedades do português: Uma interpretação discursivo-funcional [Relative constructions in the varieties of Portuguese: A discourse-functional interpretation]. Filologia e Linguística Portuguesa, 15(1), 179–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cano Aguilar, R. 1987. Estructuras sintácticas transitivas en el español actual. Editorial Gredos.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. 2006. Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions all over: Case studies and theoretical implications. Special volume of Constructions, SV 17, 1–28.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. (Ed.) 1992. Pluricentric languages. Differing norms in different nations. De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, S., & Ramat, A. 2007. Relativization strategies in the languages of Europe. In P. Ramat, & E. Roma (Eds.), Europe and the Mediterranean as Linguistic Areas: Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective (63–93). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cyrino, S. M. L., Duarte, M. E. L., & Kato, M. A. 2000. Visible subjects and invisible clitics in Brazilian Portuguese. In M. A. Kato, & E. V. Negrão (Eds.), Brazilian Portuguese and the Null Subject Parameter (pp. 55–73). Vervuert Iberoamericana. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. 2019. The Grammar Network. How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duarte, I. & Silva, M. C. F. 2016. The null subject parameter and the structure of the sentence in European and Brazilian Portuguese. In. W. L. Wetzels, J. Costa, & S. Menuzzi (Eds.), The Handbook of Portuguese Linguistics (pp. 234–253). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duarte, M. E. L. 1993. Do pronome nulo ao pronome pleno: a trajetória do sujeito no português do Brasil [From null pronoun to full pronoun: The trajectory of the subject in Brazilian Portuguese]. In I. Roberts, & M. Kato (Eds.), Português Brasileiro: Uma Viagem Diacrônica (pp. 107–128). Editora da UNICAMP.Google Scholar
Duarte, M. E. L., Gomes, C. A., & Paiva, M. da C. 2016. Codification and standardization in Brazilian Portuguese. In R. Muhr (Ed.), Pluricentric Languages and Non-Dominant Varieties Worldwide. Part II: The Pluricentricity of Portuguese and Spanish. New Concepts and Descriptions (pp. 51–65). Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Duarte, M. E. L., & Marins, J. E. 2021. Brazilian Portuguese: a ‘partial’ null subject language? Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos, 63, 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duarte, M. E. L., Sousa, A., Fernandes, U., & Cardoso, Mariana 2021. A redução no quadro de clíticos de terceira pessoa no português brasileiro: um estudo diacrônico [Reduction of the third-person clitic system in Brazilian Portuguese: A diachronic study]. LaborHistórico, 7, 154–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duarte, M. E. L., Gomes, C. A., & Paiva, M. da C. 2022. Beyond the dichotomy dominant and non-dominant varieties of pluricentric languages: The case of Brazilian Portuguese. In R. Muhr, E. Duarte, C. Rodrigues, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Pluricentric languages in the Americas. PCL-Press.Google Scholar
Faraco, C. A. 2008. Norma Culta Brasileira – Desatando alguns nós [Brazlian educated standard – Untying some knots]. Parábola Editorial.Google Scholar
2011. O Brasil entre a norma culta e a norma curta [Brazil between the educated and short standards]. In X. Lagares, & M. Bagno (Eds.), Políticas da Norma e Conflitos Linguísticos (pp. 259–275). Parábola Editorial.Google Scholar
(Ed.) 2001. Estrangeirismos. Guerras em torno da língua [Loanwords. Wars over language]. Parábola Editorial.Google Scholar
Fox, B., & Thompson, S. 1990. A discourse explanation of ‘The Grammar’ of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66, 297–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freire, G. 2000. Os clíticos de terceira pessoa e as estratégias para sua substituição na fala culta brasileira e lusitana [Third-person clitics and the strategies for their replacement in Brazilian and European cultured norm]. Masters dissertation, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
Galves, C. 2001. Ensaios sobre as Gramáticas do Português [Essays on grammars of Portuguese]. Editora da UNICAMP.Google Scholar
2018. Theoretical, empirical and methodological approaches for studying the Afro-Brazilian continuum of Portuguese. In L. Álvarez López, P. Gonçalves, & J. Avelar (Eds.), The Portuguese Language Continuum in Africa and Brazil (pp. 17–42). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galves, C., & Lopes, C. 2022. 6 Historical syntax. In J. Kabatek, & A. Wall (Eds.), Manual of Brazilian Portuguese Linguistics (pp. 155–192). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García-Miguel, J. 1995. Las relaciones gramaticales entre predicado y participantes. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Kato, M. A. 1993. Recontando a história das relativas em uma perspectiva paramétrica [Retelling the history of relative clauses in a parametric perspective]. In. I. Roberts, & M. A. Kato (Eds.), Português Brasileiro: uma viagem diacrônica (pp. 223–261). Editora da UNICAMP.Google Scholar
Kemmer, S. 1993. The middle voice. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenedy, E. 2017. A língua portuguesa no Brasil e em Portugal. O caso das orações relativas [The Portuguese language in Brazil and Portugal. The case of relative clauses]. Editora da Universidade Federal Fluminense.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive Application. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1993. Reference point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lapesa, R. 1981. Historia de La Lengua Española. Editorial Gredos.Google Scholar
Lucchesi, D. 2001. As duas grandes vertentes da história sociolingüística do Brasil [The two great strands of Brazilian sociolinguistic history]. DELTA, 17(1), 97–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Língua e sociedade partidas. A polarização sociolinguística do Brasil [Broken language and society. The sociolinguistic polarization of Brazil]. Editora Contexto.Google Scholar
Maldonado, R. 1999. A media voz. Problemas conceptuales del clítico SE. UNAM.Google Scholar
Martins, A. M. 2003. Construções com SE: mudança e variação no português europeu [SE construction: Change and variation in European Portuguese]. In I. Castro, & I. Duarte (Eds.), Razões e Emoção: Miscelânea de estudos em homenagem a Maria Helena Mira Mateus, Vol. II (pp. 19–41). Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda.Google Scholar
2005. Passive and impersonal se in the history of Portuguese. In C. D. Pusch, J. Kabatek, & W. Raible (Eds.), Romance Corpus Linguistics II: Corpora and Diachronic Linguistics (pp. 411–430). Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Martins, A. M., & Nunes, J. 2016. Passives and se constructions. In W. L. Wetzels, J. Costa, & S. Menuzzi (Eds.), The Handbook of Portuguese Linguistics (pp. 318–337). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mateus, M. H. M, & Nascimento, F. B. (Eds.). 2005. A língua portuguesa em mudança [The changing Portuguese language]. Editora Caminho.Google Scholar
Mattos e Silva, R. V. 2004. “O português são dois …”. Novas fronteiras, velhos problemas [“Portuguese is two …”. New frontiers, old problems]. Parábola Editorial.Google Scholar
Mendes, E. 2016. The Portuguese language and its non-dominant varieties: how to teach them? In. R. Muhr (Ed.), Pluricentric Languages and Non-Dominant Varieties Worldwide. Part II: The Pluricentricity of Portuguese and Spanish. New Concepts and Descriptions (pp. 85–97). Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Naro, A. 1976. The genesis of the reflexive impersonal in Portuguese: A study in syntactic change as a surface phenomenon. Language 52, 779–811. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naro, A., & Scherre, M. 2007. Origens do Português Brasileiro [Origins of Brazilian Portuguese]. Parábola Editorial.Google Scholar
Negrão, E., & Viotti, E. 2008. Estratégias de impessoalização no português brasileiro [Impersonalization strategies in Brazilian Portuguese]. In J. L. Fiorin, & M. Petter (Eds.), África no Brasil. A formação da língua portuguesa (pp. 171–203). Contexto.Google Scholar
2011. A ergativização do português brasileiro: Uma conversa continuada com Carlos Franchi [Ergativization in Brazilian Portuguese: An ongoing conversation with Carlos Franchi]. In D. Hora, & E. Negrão (Eds.), Estudos da linguagem. Casamento entre temas e perspectivas (pp. 37–61). Ideia Editora Universitária.Google Scholar
2015. Elementos para a investigação da semântica do clítico SE no português brasileiro [Pointers for an investigation of the semantics of the clitic SE in Brazilian Portuguese]. Cadernos de Estudos Lingüísticos, 57(1), 41–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. 2005. Conceptual blending and the interpretation of relatives: A case study from Greek. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1), 169–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. 1991. Se apassivador e se indeterminador: o percursos diacrônico no português brasileiro [Passive and impersonal se: A diachronic study in Brazilian Portuguese]. Cadernos de Estudos Lingüísticos, 20, 33–58.Google Scholar
1995. Ainda o famigerado se [Still the famous clitic se]. DELTA, 2(2), 201–240.Google Scholar
Oliveira, G. M. 2015. O Instituto Internacional da Língua Portuguesa e a gestão multilateral da Língua Portuguesa no âmbito da CPLP [The International Institute of the Portuguese Language and the multilateral management of the Portuguese language within the CPLP]. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 13(2), 19–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pereira, D. 2007. Variação e mudança no uso dos pronomes reflexivos no português popular da capital paulista: Uma abordagem funcionalista e cognitivista [Variation and change in the use of reflexive pronouns in popular Portuguese of the city of São Paulo: A functional and cognitive approach]. PhD dissertation. Universidade de São Paulo.Google Scholar
Peres, J. A., & Móia, T. 1995. Áreas críticas da língua portuguesa [Critical areas of Portuguese]. Editora Caminho.Google Scholar
Raposo, E. P., Nascimento, M. F., Mota, M. A., Segura, L., & Mendes, A. 2013. Gramática do Português [Portuguese Grammar]. Vol. II. Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, D. 1997. O Povo Brasileiro: A formação e o sentido do Brasil [The Brazilian people: The formation and meaning of Brazil]. Editora Schwarcz.Google Scholar
Roberts, I., & Kato, M. A. (Eds.). 1993. Português Brasileiro: uma viagem diacrônica [Brazilian Portuguese: A diachronic journey]. Editora da UNICAMP.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 149–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scherre, M. M. P. 2005. Doa-se lindos filhotes de poodle: Variação lingüística, mídia e preconceito [Beautiful poodle puppies for sale: Linguistic variation, Media and prejudice]. Parábola Editorial.Google Scholar
Scherre, M. M. P., & Duarte, M. E. L. 2016. Main current processes of morphosyntactic variation. In W. L. Wetzels, J. Costa, & S. Menuzzi (Eds.), The Handbook of Portuguese Linguistics (pp. 526–544). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soares da Silva, A. 2010. Measuring and parameterizing lexical convergence and divergence between European and Brazilian Portuguese. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp. 41–83). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soares da Silva, A. 2014. The pluricentricity of Portuguese: A sociolectometrical approach to divergence between European and Brazilian Portuguese. In. A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Pluricentricity: Language Variation and Sociocognitive Dimensions (pp. 143–188). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2015. Cultural cognitive models of language variation. Romanticism and rationalism in language policy debates about the unity/diversity of European and Brazilian Portuguese. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelman, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes. Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics (pp. 253–274). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2016. The cognitive approach to pluricentric languages and the pluricentricity of Portuguese: What’s really new? In R. Muhr (Ed.), Pluricentric languages and non-dominant varieties worldwide. Part II: The pluricentricity of Portuguese and Spanish. New concepts and descriptions (pp. 13–34). Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
2018. O português no mundo e a sua estandardização: entre a realidade de uma língua pluricêntrica e o desejo de uma língua internacional [Portuguese in the world and its standardization: Between the reality of a pluricentric language and the desire for an international language]. In H. Barroso (Ed.), O Português na Casa do Mundo Hoje (pp. 111–132). Centro de Estudos Humanísticos da Universidade do Minho & Húmus.Google Scholar
2020. Portuguese: Normative Grammars. In F. Lebsanft, & F. Tracke (Eds.), Manual of Standardization in the Romance Languages (pp. 679–700). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022. Portuguese, pluricentricity and Brazilian Portuguese: A case of a reverted asymmetry? In R. Muhr, E. Duarte, C. Rodrigues, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Pluricentric languages in the Americas (pp. 135–156). PCL-Press.Google Scholar
Soares da Silva, A., Afonso, S., Palú, D., & Franco, K. 2021. Null se constructions in Brazilian and European Portuguese: Morphosyntactic deletion or emergence of new constructions? Cognitive Linguistics, 32(1), 159–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soares da Silva, A., & Afonso, S. 2022. Variação nas construções relativas preposicionais em português europeu e brasileiro: Operacionalizando os fatores acessibilidade e proeminência [Variation in prepositional relative constructions in European and Brazilian Portuguese: Operationalizing accessibility and prominence factors]. Paper presented at International Congress on Syntax: In Honor of Professor Ana Maria Brito. Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 13–15 July 2022.Google Scholar
Tarallo, F. 1983. Relativization strategies in Brazilian Portuguese. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
Torres Moraes, M. A., & Salles, H. M. 2010. Parametric change in the grammatical encoding of indirect objects in Brazilian Portuguese. Probus 22, 181–209.Google Scholar
Winters, M. E. 2020. Historical Linguistics: A cognitive grammar introduction. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winters, M. E., Tissari, H., & Allan, K. (Eds.). 2010. Historical Cognitive Linguistics. De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar