Sobre Os Compostos Do Pb

Lee, Seung Hwa

doi:10.1590/s0102-44501997000100002

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The position of the head in word-word compounds determines the application of certain morphosyntactic processes, such as pluralisation: the plural suffix -s usually attaches to the head of the structure (e.g. sofa-s cama, sem teto-s), or to both elements if there is no identifiable head (amor-es perfeito-s) (see, e.g., Lee (1997) for a detailed description of the morphosyntactic structure of word-word compounds in BP). These morphosyntactic differences, however, do not affect the phonological behaviour of word-word compounds in BP (see, e.g., Silva 2010).…”

Section: Types Of Composite Structures In Bpmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Word-word compounds in (Brazilian) Portuguese can be formed from several distinct combinations of lexical categories (Lee 1997, Moreno 1997, Rio-Torto & Ribeiro 2012. Table 1 lists examples of word-word compounds in BP (the examples are orthographically transcribed except for stress, which is marked by an acute accent).…”

Section: Types Of Composite Structures In Bpmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The prosodic representation of composite structures in Brazilian Portuguese

Guzzo

2018

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In previous research, word–word compounds and stressed affix + word structures have been assigned to the same prosodic domain in Brazilian Portuguese (BP), on account of certain similarities in phonological behaviour (Silva 2010, Toneli 2014): both types of composite structures undergo vowel raising at the right edge of each element in the construction, and vowel sandhi processes between their elements. In this paper, I show that word–word compounds and stressed affix + word structures exhibit significant differences in stress patterns in BP, which supports their prosodization in two separate domains. While stressed affix + word structures are assigned secondary stress following the phonological word (PWd) stress algorithm, each element in word–word compounds behaves as an independent PWd with regard to the stress pattern that it exhibits. I thus propose that while stressed affix + word structures are recursively prosodized in the PWd domain, word–word compounds are prosodized in the composite group, the domain proposed by Vogel (2008, 2009) that immediately dominates the PWd and accounts for the prosodization of structures with compositional characteristics. The analysis reconciles two views on prosodic structure that are traditionally assumed to be mutually exclusive: the view that prosodic domains can be recursive (e.g. Inkelas 1990, Selkirk 1996) and the view that the prosodic hierarchy includes an additional domain specific to composite structures above the PWd (e.g. Vogel 2009, Vigário 2010).

show abstract

Section: Types Of Composite Structures In Bpmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Types Of Composite Structures In Bpmentioning

confidence: 99%