Author

As construções reflexivas na língua Tenetehára-Guajajára

Introduction

As construções reflexivas na língua tenetehára-guajajára. Explore construções reflexivas na língua Tenetehára-Guajajára (Tupi-Guarani). Descubra dois tipos: com e sem morfema {ze-}, analisando a relação morfologia-sintaxe.

Abstract

O presente artigo tem como objetivo examinar as construções reflexivas da língua Tenetehára-Guajajára, da família Tupi-Guarani. Identificou-se que nessa língua há dois tipos de reflexivas, a saber: (i) reflexivas marcadas pelo morfema {ze-}; (ii) reflexivas não marcadas morfologicamente. Neste estudo, adotou-se uma abordagem pautada na relação morfologia-sintaxe, com destaque para as teorias de Haspelmath (2019); Alexiadou, Anagnostopolou e Schäfer (2015) e Kratzer (2009). Os resultados das análises mostraram que: i) embora o prefixo {ze-} seja o marcador de voz reflexiva, alguns verbos reflexivos em Guajajára podem figurar sem a presença do referido morfema; ii) os predicados reflexivos não fazem nenhuma distinção de pessoa, número ou gênero, portanto, podem ser interpretados localmente sem que traços- sejam morfologicamente realizados no prefixo {ze-} em núcleo de Voice.

Review

The article "As construções reflexivas na língua Tenetehára-Guajajára" presents a focused and timely examination of reflexive constructions within Tenetehára-Guajajára, a language of the Tupi-Guarani family. This investigation is crucial for advancing our understanding of grammatical phenomena in indigenous South American languages, often under-documented, and provides valuable data for comparative linguistics. By specifically targeting reflexivity, the study promises to shed light on how this fundamental semantic and syntactic operation is encoded in a less-studied linguistic system, adopting a robust morphology-syntax interface approach informed by prominent theoretical frameworks, including those of Haspelmath (2019), Alexiadou, Anagnostopolou and Schäfer (2015), and Kratzer (2009). The abstract clearly outlines the identification of two distinct types of reflexive constructions: those marked by the morpheme {ze-} and those that are morphologically unmarked. This distinction is particularly interesting, especially the finding that while {ze-} functions as a reflexive voice marker, some reflexive verbs can occur without it. The abstract further highlights that reflexive predicates in Guajajára do not make person, number, or gender distinctions, suggesting local interpretation without overt phi-feature realization on the {ze-} prefix in the Voice head. These findings present a compelling case study for the interplay between morphological marking and syntactic interpretation of reflexivity. The explicit engagement with contemporary theoretical models underscores the article's ambition to move beyond mere description, providing a theoretically grounded analysis that can inform broader discussions on voice, argument structure, and the cross-linguistic typology of reflexives. Overall, this article represents a significant contribution to both Tupi-Guarani linguistics and the broader theoretical study of reflexivity. Its detailed analysis of Tenetehára-Guajajára reflexives offers novel empirical data, challenging and refining existing typologies of reflexive constructions, particularly concerning the interaction between explicit morphological marking and implicit interpretation. The theoretical rigor applied positions the findings to engage with and potentially advance current models of syntax and morphology. This work will be of interest to a wide audience, including typologists, morphosyntacticians, and scholars of indigenous languages, providing a strong foundation for future comparative work within the Tupi-Guarani family and for further theoretical explorations into the variable expression of reflexivity across languages. It promises to be an insightful and impactful piece of research.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.