Verbos inacusativos versus verbos inergativos: evidências sintáticas para demonstrar as diferenças de comportamentos

Abstract

This article discusses the subdivision of monoarguments verbs into inergative and unaccusative, based on generative theory, which define inergatives as verbs that have only external argument and unaccusative as verbs that have only internal argument. Thus, the traditional view is contrasted, in which it treats these two subcategories as something unique: the intransitive ones, verbs that do not have complement. To prove the existence of this subdivision, we rely on the Unaccusative Hypothesis proposed by Perlmutter (1978), for relational grammar. This hypothesis was reinterpreted by Burzio (1986) and redirected to Chomsky's Principles and Parameters model (1981), thereby postulating a generalization known as Burzio Generalization, which was incorporated to the generative theory, that support this article. With respect to the proposed discussion, the morphosyntactic tests described in the literature of the area are presented and analyzed, using a corpus that was also removed from that specific literature. Each test was revisited and analyzed from sentences formed with verbs of the corpus raised, in order to demonstrate which one best identifies this subdivision, as well as to identify gaps in these tests. After the analysis, it was noticed that the test with the absolute participle presented a higher degree of assertiveness, in relation to the other tests; on the other hand, the tests with the past participle in predicative position and the nominalization with suffix -or presented the worst assertiveness indexes, within the corpus researched.