21.04.2013 Views

Eckhard Bick - VISL

Eckhard Bick - VISL

Eckhard Bick - VISL

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

de 77 % 23 % -<br />

em 33 % 12 % 55 %<br />

para 8 % 23 % 69 %<br />

por 38 % 15 % 46 %<br />

Provided full nominal valency is implemented in the lexicon, two of the cases can be<br />

resolved 100%: a always prefers the adverbial over the postnominal modifier reading,<br />

and de is, when in doubt, a postnominal modifier. Though de does enter in adverbial<br />

pairs with a (from - to/till), this was rare in the above statistics 184 , and it also is more<br />

significant for a than for de, since de is 10 times as frequent in postnominal position.<br />

Also, in the de...a pair, it is usually a that gets a left-hand noun context, while de<br />

follows the verb: todos adoram V, do primogênito N ao caçula.. The preference of a for<br />

an adverbial reading is further upheld by a kind of retrograde valency, where the noun<br />

in adverbial expressions like à distância, a disposição, à moda is marked by a tag<br />

which helps disambiguate the preceding preposition.<br />

For por, virtually all the modifier @N< instances are "frequency terms" like<br />

horas por dia, dólares por dia, vezes por semana, which can be identified by right hand<br />

context, too, by looking for TIME-nouns of the (duration) subclass.<br />

Para is much more likely to be used adverbially, and - like for a - a common right<br />

hand context suggesting such an @ADVL reading is a verb in the infinitive, making the<br />

PP a kind of purposive "subclause"<br />

The hard cases left, then, are com and em, which in postnominal position can be<br />

used to express a feature or the location of an object, respectively. Sadly, neither feature<br />

modifiers nor location modifiers need to be valency bound. Crude semantic rules can be<br />

fashioned to supplement the purely statistical rule of preferring the adverbial reading,<br />

after all valency information has been used. Thus, since com + feature is semantically<br />

unlikely to function as adverbial, semantic tags denoting features (like , )<br />

can be used to decide on postnominality for com-PPs. Likewise, em-PPs could be<br />

tagged for @ADVL if they do not denote place, but time, since only a restricted set of<br />

deverbal nouns or 'happenings' allows temporal modifiers.<br />

184 Rather, most cases would be treated as valency bound adverbial objects (@ADV) in conjunctions with MOVE-verbs.<br />

- 313 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!