Palavras-chave
Auxiliary verb
Phonetic reduction
Suprasegmental features
Function words
Content words
Como Citar
Resumo
The goal of this paper is to verify whether there is an acoustic difference between a reduced form of the verb poder (po’) ‘to be able to’ and the noun pó ‘powder’ in Brazilian Portuguese oral discourse. The reduction of the verb occurs in contexts in which it is an auxiliary in periphrases formed with the infinitive. This process results in a form segmentally homonymous with the noun pó [‘pɔ]. As the literature states that function words are shorter in duration than content words, homonymy is expected to occur at the segmental, but not at the suprasegmental level. To verify this hypothesis, we analyzed data from Brazilian Portuguese spontaneous speech, selecting the parameters of normalized duration (in smoothed z-score), mean intensity, mean f0 of both [‘pɔ] and its contiguous words, and the mean frequency of the formants (F1 and F2) of the vowel of both the verb and the noun. Statistically significant results were found only for duration, confirming that the auxiliary verb (a function word) is shorter than the noun (a content word). It is suggested that the suprasegmental level, namely duration, is an important correlate in differentiation between two segmentally homonymous words but from different categories.
Referências
1. Aalberse SP. Inflectional economy and politeness: Morphology-internal and morphology-external factors in the loss of second person marking in Dutch [dissertation]. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam; 2009. 266p. Available from http://dare.uva.nl/document/134127
2. Almeida NM. Gramática latina: curso único e completo. 29th ed. São Paulo: Saraiva; 2000.
3. Baese-Berk MM, Dilley LC, Henry MJ, Vinke L, Banzina E. Not just a function of function words: Distal speech rate influences perception of prosodically weak syllables. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019;81:571-589. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1626-4
4. Barbosa PA. Incursões em torno do ritmo da fala. Campinas: FAPESP/Pontes Editores; 2006.
5. Barbosa PA. From syntax to acoustic duration: A dynamical model of speech rhythm production. Speech Commun. 2007;49(9):725-742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2007.04.013
6. Barbosa PA. Semi-automatic and automatic tools for generating prosodic descriptors for prosody research. In Bigi B, Hirst D, editors. Proceedings of Interspeech satellite event Tools and Resources for the Analysis of Speech Prosody; 2013 Aug 30; Aix-en-Provence, France. Aix-en-Provance: TRASP; 2013. p. 86-89. Available from http://www2.lpl-aix.fr/~trasp/Proceedings/19874-trasp2013.pdf
7. Barbosa PA. Manual de prosódia experimental. Editora da Abralin; 2022. https://doi.org/10.25189/9788568990230
8. Barbosa PA, Camargo ZA, Madureira S. Scripts for the acoustic analysis of speech data. In Madureira S, editor. Sonorities: speech, singing and reciting expressivity. São Paulo: Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo; 2016. p. 164-174. Available from https://www5.pucsp.br/liaac/download/sonoridades-sonorities.pdf
9. Bastiaanse R, Thompson CK, editors. Perspectives on agrammatism. London: Psychology Press; 2012.
10. Bell A, Brenier JM, Gregory M, Girand C, Jurafsky D. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. J Mem Lang. 2007;60(1):92-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003
11. Benveniste É. Problèmes sémantiques de la reconstruction. Word. 1954;10(2-3):251-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659526
12. Benveniste É. Dictionary of Indo-European concepts and society. Palmer E, translator. Chicago: Hau Books; 2016.
13. Boersma P, Weenink D. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.4.18. Available from http://www.praat.org/
14. Borba FS. Dicionário gramatical de verbos do português contemporâneo do Brasil. 2nd ed. São Paulo: Editora UNESP; 1991.
15. Boye K. Lexical vs grammatical words. In Van Lier E, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Word Classes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2023. p. 72-84. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198852889.013.4
16. Brunelle M, Chow D, Nguyễn TNU. Effects of lexical frequency and lexical category on the duration of Vietnamese syllables. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015, editor. Proceedings of 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences; 2015 Aug 10-14; Glasgow, UK. p.1-5. Available from https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2015/Papers/ICPHS0341.pdf
17. Bybee J. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Lang Var Change. 2002;14(3):261-290. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394502143018
18. Bybee J. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Joseph BD, Janda RD, editors. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden: Blackwell; 2003. p. 602-623. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405166201.ch19
19. Bybee J. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language. 2006;82(4):711-733. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186
20. Bybee J. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001
21. Bybee J. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526
22. Bybee J. Grammatical and lexical factors in sound change: A usage-based approach. Lang Var Change. 2017;29:273-300. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394517000199
23. Bybee J, Brown EK. The role of constructions in understanding predictability measures and their correspondence to word duration. Cogn Linguist. 2024;35(3):377-406. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2023-0077
24. Bybee J, File-Muriel RJ, Souza RN. Special reduction: a usage-based approach. Lang Cogn. 2016;8(3):421-446. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.19
25. Bybee J, Fleischman S, editors. Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 1995. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32
26. Bybee J, Perkins R, Pagliuca W. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press; 1994.
27. Caballero, JA, Vergis N, Jiang X, Pell MD. The sound of im/politeness. Speech Commun. 2018;102:39-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2018.06.004
28. Coelho SM. Estudo diacrônico do processo de expansão gramatical e lexical dos itens TER, HAVER, SER, ESTAR e IR na língua portuguesa [dissertation]. Belo Horizonte: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; 2006. 323p. Available from https://repositorio.ufmg.br/handle/1843/ALDR-6PGGWS
29. Coelho SM. Um estudo de redução fônica. In Ramos JM, Coelho SM, editors. Português brasileiro dialetal: Temas gramaticais. Campinas: Mercado de Letras; 2013. p. 43-56.
30. Coelho SM, Paula TF. Estudo do processo de gramaticalização do verbo poder no dialeto mineiro: análise comparativa entre o dialeto belo-horizontino e o dialeto ouro-pretano. Rev Estud Ling. 2011;19(1):87-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.19.1.87-113
31. Danckaert L. Variation and change in Latin BE-periphrases: Empirical and methodological considerations. In Adams JN, Vincent N, editors. Early and Late Latin: Continuity or change? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016. p. 132-162. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316450826.007
32. Danckaert L. The origins of the Romance analytic passive: evidence from word order. In Mathieu E, Truswell R, editors. Micro-change and macro-change in diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 216-235. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198747840.003.0014
33. Diaz M, McCarthy G. A comparison of brain activity evoked by single content and function words: An fMRI investigation of implicit word processing. Brain Res. 2009;1282:38-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.043
34. Dilley LC, Pitt MA. Altering context speech rate can cause words to appear or disappear. Psychol Sci. 2010 ;21(11) :1664-1670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610384743
35. Fedorenko E, Ryskin R, Gibson E. Agrammatic output in non-fluent, including Broca’s, aphasia as a rational behavior. Aphasiology. 2023;37(12):1981-2000. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2022.2143233
36. Fernandes F. Dicionário de verbos e regimes. 39th ed. São Paulo: Globo; 1993.
37. Fleischman S. The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982.
38. Fruyt M. Grammaticalization in Latin. In Baldi P, Cuzzolin, P, editors. New perspectives on historical Latin syntax. Volume 4: Complex sentences, grammaticalization, typology. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter; 2011. p. 661-864. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110253412.661
39. Gahl S. Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language. 2008;84(3):474-496. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0035
40. Gahl S, Yao Y, Johnson K. Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. J Mem Lang. 2012;66(4):789-806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.006
41. Gibson E, Futrell R, Piantadosi SP, Dautriche I, Mahowald K, Bergen L, Levy R. How efficiency shapes human language. Trends Cogn Sci. 2019;23(5):289-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003
42. Giomi R. A functional discourse grammar theory of grammaticalization. Volume 2: Formal change. Leiden: Brill; 2023. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004520585
43. Goodglass H, Mayer J. Agrammatism in aphasia. J Speech Hear Disord. 1958;23(1):99-111. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.2301.99
44. Harris, CR, Millman KJ, van der Walt SJ, Gommers R, Virtanen P, Cournapeau D, et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature. 2020;585:357-362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2
45. Harris Z. A theory of language structure. Am Philos Q. 1976a;13(4):237-255. Available from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20009633
46. Harris Z. On a theory of language. J Philos. 1976b;73(10):253-276. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025530
47. Harris Z. Grammar on mathematical principles. J Linguist. 1978;14(1):1-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700005636
48. Harris Z. Language and information. New York: Columbia University Press; 1988.
49. Harris Z. A theory of language and information: A mathematical approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1991. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198242246.001.0001
50. Heine B, Claudi U, Hünnemeyer F. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1991.
51. Heine B, Kaltenböck G, Kuteva T, Long H. The rise of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108982856
52. Heine B, Song K-A. On the grammaticalization of personal pronouns. J Linguist. 2011;47(3):587-630. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226711000016
53. Hopper PJ, Traugott EC. Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525
54. Hunter, JD. Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment. Comput Sci Eng. 2007;9(3):90-95. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55
55. Kapatsinski V, Easterday S, Bybee J. Vowel reduction: A usage-based perspective. Ital J Linguist. 2020;32(1):19-44. https://doi.org/10.26346/1120-2726-146
56. Kean M-L. Agrammatism. New York: Academic Press; 1985. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-10949-X
57. Kuryłowicz, J. The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes. 1965;51:55–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/039219216501305105
58. Lee T, Kong APH, Wang H. Duration of content and function words in oral discourse by speakers with fluent aphasia: Preliminary data. Front Psychol. 2014;64:39. https://doi.org/10.3389/conf.fpsyg.2014.64.00039
59. Lehmann C. Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd ed. Berlin: Lang Sci Press; 2015. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7520796
60. Lehmann C. Ten lectures on grammaticalization: An introduction. Leiden: Brill; 2024. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004692701
61. Levshina N. Communicative efficiency: Language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022a. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108887809
62. Levshina N. Frequency, informativity and word length: Insights from typologically diverse corpora. Entropy. 2022b;24:280. https://doi.org/10.3390/e24020280
63. Liu B, Jin Z, Wang Z, Wu G. Chinese function words grammaticalized from content words: Evidence from ERPs. J Neurolinguistics. 2010;23(6):663-675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.07.002
64. Lobato LM. Os verbos auxiliares em português contemporâneo. In Lobato LM, editor. Análises lingüísticas. Petrópolis: Vozes; 1975.
65. Lopes GV, Ferreira MP et al. Cantigas medievais galego-portuguesas [online database]. Lisboa: Instituto de Estudos Medievais, FCSH/NOVA; 2011. Available from https://cantigas.fcsh.unl.pt/
66. McKinney W. Data structures for statistical computing in Python. In: Python in Science Conference (SCIPY 2010); 2010; Austin, United States of America. p. 51-56. https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a
67. Meillet A. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia (Riv Scienza). 1912;12(26-6):130-148.
68. Mohr B, Pulvermüller F, Zaidel E. Lexical decision after left, right and bilateral presentation of function words, content words and non-words: Evidence from interhemispheric interaction. Neuropsychologia. 1994;32(1):105-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(94)90073-6
69. Narrog H. Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694372.001.0001
70. Narrog H, Heine B, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.001.0001
71. Narrog H, Heine B. Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2021.
72. Ofuka E, McKeown JD, Waterman MG, Roach PJ. Prosodic cues for rated politeness in Japanese speech. Speech Commun. 2000;32(3):199-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(00)00009-1
73. Pontes E. Verbos auxiliares em português. Petrópolis: Vozes; 1973.
74. Raso T, Mello H, editors. C-ORAL-BRASIL I: Corpus de referência do português brasileiro falado informal. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG; 2012.
75. Ryskin R, Nieuwland MS. Prediction during language comprehension: what is next? Trends Cogn Sci. 2023;27(11):1032-1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.08.003
76. Seyfarth S. Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition. 2014;133(1):140-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013
77. Seyfarth S, Garellek M, Gillingham G, Ackerman F, Malouf R. Acoustic differences in morphologically-distinct homophones. Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2017;33(1):32-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1359634
78. Shi R, Gick B, Kanwischer D, Wilson I. Frequency and category factors in the reduction and assimilation of function words: EPG and acoustic measures. J Psycholinguist Res. 2005;34(4):341-364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6138-4
79. Silva LFL, Costa JC, Coelho SM. Um estudo de construções com o verbo deixar em fala espontânea do português brasileiro: aspectos gramaticais/discursivos e análise acústica. Rev Estud Linguagem. 2022;30(2):743-779. http://dx.doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.30.2.743-779
80. Silva-Corvalán C. Modality and semantic change. In Fisiak J, editor. Historical semantics – Historical word formation. Berlin: Mouton; 1985. p. 547-572. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110850178.547
81. Swanson LA, Leonard LB. Duration of function-word vowels in mothers’ speech to young children. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1994;37(6):1394-1405. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3706.1394
82. Traugott EC, Dasher RB. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486500
83. Turner GS, Tjaden K. Acoustic differences between content and function words in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43(3):769-781. https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4303.769
84. Van Bergem, DR. Acoustic vowel reduction as a function of sentence accent, word stress, and word class. Speech Commun. 1993;12(1):1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6393(93)90015-D
85. Virtanen, P. et al. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python. Nat Methods. 2020;17(3):261-272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
86. Waksom, ML. Seaborn: Statistical Data Visualization. J Open Source Softw. 2021;6(60):1-4. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03021
87. Wang H, Liu X, Wang X, Cui G, Xie X, Zhong X. Functional category production and degrees of severity: findings from Chinese agrammatism. Aphasiology. 2019;33(10):1227-1247. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2019.1626081
88. Zipf GK. Frequency as a determinant of phonetic change. Harv Stud Class Philol. 1929;40:1-95. https://doi.org/10.2307/310585
89. Zipf GK. Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Press; 1949.
90. Zipf GK. The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press; 1968[1935].
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Luis Filipe Lima e Silva