SUBSTITUTIVE ADVERSATIVE COORDINATION NÃO X, MAS Y IN PORTUGUESE: A DISCURSIVE-FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF SYNTATIC DELETION

ABSTRACT

ANSCOMBRE; DUCROT, 1977 VOGT; DUCROT, 1980

Adversative coordination; Contrast; Mas_SN; Reduction; Functional Discourse Grammar

RESUMO

Este artigo investiga, sob a perspectiva da Gramática Discursivo-Funcional, a coordenação adversativa substitutiva, em que o segundo membro coordenado – e, às vezes, o primeiro também – é expresso por sintagma ou palavra, como em cê num dá tanto valor ao ídolo, mas à música dele. Essas estruturas têm recebido pouca atenção por parte de estudos funcionalistas, com exceção da Semântica Argumentativa (ANSCOMBRE; DUCROT, 1977; VOGT; DUCROT, 1980). De acordo com a teoria aqui adotada, nessas expressões, há dois Atos Discursivos relacionados, tendo o segundo membro da coordenação molde de conteúdo Tético com um Subato. Semanticamente, ambos os membros constituem Conteúdos Proposicionais e, em última instância, predicações, em que o segundo membro apresenta molde de predicação Identificacional, Classificacional ou Relacional, formulados numa interação entre os componentes Gramatical e Contextual. Assim, o segundo membro da coordenação é expresso por um único sintagma ou palavra, que introduz a informação nova (focal), considerada pelo Falante importante para atualizar a informação pragmática do Ouvinte. Advogamos, em consonância com o modelo teórico adotado, que não há apagamento de constituintes da predicação no segundo membro, mas que o fenômeno é resultado de uma discrepância (mismatch) entre os níveis pragmático e semântico na gramática do português.

Coordenação adversativa; Contraste; Mas_SN; Apagamento; Gramática Discursivo-Funcional

Introduction

Anscombre and Ducrot (1977), Vogt and Ducrot (1980), among others, from the perspective of the Argumentative Semantics, differentiate two functions performed by mais in French, whose correlate for Portuguese is mas (“but”): mas_PA and mas_SN.¹ According to Guimarães (1987), the first function, exemplified by Paulo era mais adequado para o cargo, mas não foi escolhido (“Paulo was more appropriate for the position, but was not chosen”), establishes an argumentative orientation, indicating that what must be taken into account is what is expressed in the second statement. The second function, exemplified by Ela não é nadadora, mas atleta (“She is not a swimmer, but an athlete”), has an oppositional function, but not an argumentative one, and always appears after a negative statement, with the function of correcting a given or implied information.

According to Pezatti, Paula and Galvão Passetti (2019), Pezatti and Galvão Passetti (2021) and Galvão Passetti (2021), who analyze non-clause coordination with mas from the perspective of the Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG), the elements coordinated whether by mas_PA or by mas_SN constitute Discourse Acts,² the smallest identifiable unit of communicative behavior. Semantically, they represent Propositional Contents which convey predications. Moreover, according to the authors, mas_PA marks the rhetorical function Concession, performed by the Discourse Act corresponding to the first element, as in (1), while mas_SN encodes the pragmatic function Contrast, performed by the Communicated Content corresponding to the second element, as in (2).³

(1) Inf.: sabe que que eu fiz ontem?... matei uma galinha... caipira mas bem gorda... (do you know what I did yesterday?... I killed a chicken... a rustic one but really fat) (AC-122, RP: L. 305) IL: (AI: [... (CI: (TI) (CI))FOC] (AI))Conc (AJ: [... (CJ: (TJ) (CJ))FOC] (AJ)) ↙ ML: (Awi: –caipira– (Awi)) (Gwi: mas (Gwi)) (Api: –bem gorda– (Api))

(1)	Inf.: sabe que que eu fiz ontem?... matei uma galinha... caipira mas bem gorda... (do you know what I did yesterday?... I killed a chicken... a rustic one but really fat) (AC-122, RP: L. 305)
	IL:	(AI: [... (CI: (TI) (CI))FOC] (AI))Conc (AJ: [... (CJ: (TJ) (CJ))FOC] (AJ))
		↙
	ML:	(Awi: –caipira– (Awi)) (Gwi: mas (Gwi)) (Api: –bem gorda– (Api))

(2) Inf.: acho que se tivesse uns professor ma::is... mais::… não mais bem pago mas sim mais::... mais sério... (I think that if it had some teachers mo::re... more::… not better paid but yes more::... more committed) (AC-015, RO: L. 876) IL: (AI: [... (CI: (TI) (CI))FOC] (AI)) (AJ: [... (CJ: (TJ) (CJ))FOC-CONTR] (AJ)) ↙ ML: (Gwi: não (Gwi)) (Api: –mais bem pago– (Api)) (Gwj: mas (Gwj)) (Gwk: sim (Gwk)) (Apj: –mais sério– (Apj))

(2)	Inf.: acho que se tivesse uns professor ma::is... mais::… não mais bem pago mas sim mais::... mais sério... (I think that if it had some teachers mo::re... more::… not better paid but yes more::... more committed) (AC-015, RO: L. 876)
	IL:	(AI: [... (CI: (TI) (CI))FOC] (AI)) (AJ: [... (CJ: (TJ) (CJ))FOC-CONTR] (AJ))
		↙
	ML:	(Gwi: não (Gwi)) (Api: –mais bem pago– (Api)) (Gwj: mas (Gwj)) (Gwk: sim (Gwk)) (Apj: –mais sério– (Apj))

In this study, we are interested in the second case, in which coordination with mas indicates “replacement” (PEZATTI; PAULA; GALVÃO PASSETTI, 2019; PEZATTI; GALVÃO PASSETTI, 2021; GALVÃO PASSETTI, 2021), “refutation” (ANSCOMBRE; DUCROT, 1977), “rectification” (MÓIA, 2008), “refutation-rectification” (SOUSA, 2008) or even “exclusion” (MATOS; PRADA, 2005). In these structures, the first element contains a negative polarity operator, commonly the particle não (“no”), deleting the information from the first element, while the particle mas instructs the Addressees to replace, in their mental representation, the negated information by the information asserted in the second element.

The purpose of this article is to show that the second element of these coordinations – and sometimes the first as well –, encoded by a Phrase or Word, constitutes a predication in which not all arguments are expressed, as in sim o da cultura (“indeed the cultural one”) (3), without having to resort to deletion rules.⁴

(3) - quanto é que calcula que vale a sua colecção? (how much do you think your collection is worth?) -> bem, não sei dizer, é muito difícil. eh, nã[...], não há, neste momento não há em jo[...], não está em jogo o aspecto... monetário (well, I don’t know for sure, it’s very hard. eh, no[...], there is not, actually there is not at sta[...], the monetary aspect is not at stake...) - sim. (yes.) -> mas sim o da cultura. (but indeed the cultural one.) (CV95:Coleccionismo)

(3)

- quanto é que calcula que vale a sua colecção? (how much do you think your collection is worth?) -> bem, não sei dizer, é muito difícil. eh, nã[...], não há, neste momento não há em jo[...], não está em jogo o aspecto... monetário (well, I don’t know for sure, it’s very hard. eh, no[...], there is not, actually there is not at sta[...], the monetary aspect is not at stake...) - sim. (yes.) -> mas sim o da cultura. (but indeed the cultural one.) (CV95:Coleccionismo)

This study is qualitative in nature, and it is affiliated to the linguistic functionalism, more specifically to the Dutch functionalism, the FDG. The investigation analyzes spoken language data, submitted to analysis factors related to the set of theoretical categories of FDG. The data are obtained from:

1. The Oral Portuguese Corpus, developed within the scope of the project Spoken Portuguese: Geographical and Social Varieties (CLUL, 1995-1997), which provides samples of varieties of Portuguese spoken in Portugal (PT), in Brazil (BR), in Portuguese-speaking African countries – Angola (AN), Cape Verde (CV), Guinea-Bissau (GB), Mozambique (MO), São Tomé and Príncipe (TP), Goa (GO) and Timor-Leste (TL) – and in Macau (MC);

2. The Corpus Iboruna⁵, originating from the project Amostra Linguística do Interior Paulista (ALIP), designed by the Functional Grammar Research Group (GPGF), which provides samples of the Portuguese spoken in the countryside of the São Paulo State, more specifically in the Northwestern region.

This paper is structured in four sections. The first one presents an outline of the model adopted, namely, the FDG; the second section identifies content frame type of the linguistic expressions analyzed here; the third section distinguishes the activated predication frames, in addition to highlighting the relationship between grammar and context in the production of substitutive adversative coordination; the fourth section links the pragmatic and semantic levels, explaining the morphosyntactic configuration of the non-clause member of these constructions; and, in closing, the final considerations are presented, displaying the explanatory effectiveness of the theoretical model adopted in regard to the phenomena explained by means of the deletion rule.

Functional Discourse Grammar

Designed by Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2008), the FDG theoretical model constitutes a development of the Functional Grammar postulated by Dik (1997a, 1997b). In its theoretical model, the FDG addresses the situated nature of linguistic communication, that is, it considers the inter-relationship between language and context. This interrelation is expressed by the Conceptual, Contextual and Output Components (cf. Chart 1), which make the FDG compatible with a broader theory of verbal interaction, that is, although FDG is a grammar model, when considering the interaction of the Grammatical Component with other components (see Table 1), it acquires a theoretical format which is both structural and functional.

The Conceptual Component is pre-linguistic. According to Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2010, p. 368-369), it accounts for the development “of both a communicative intention relevant for the current speech event and the associated conceptualizations with respect to relevant extra-linguistic events, and is thus the driving force behind the Grammatical Component as a whole”. The Output Component, in turn, is responsible for generating linguistic, acoustic, written or sign expressions, based on the information provided by the Grammatical Component. Its function can be understood as “translating the digital (i.e. categorical, opposition-based) information in the grammar into analog (i.e., continuously variable) form” (HENGEVELD; MACKENZIE, 2010, p. 369). The Contextual Component, in turn, contains two types of information:

Firstly, it houses the immediate information received from the Grammatical Component concerning a particular utterance which is relevant to the form that subsequent utterances may take. Secondly, it contains longer-term information about the ongoing interaction that is relevant to the distinctions that are required in the language being used, and which influence formulation and encoding in that language. (HENGEVELD; MACKENZIE, 2008, p. 9-10).

This short-term and long-term collection of information is fed by and feeds the Formulation and Encoding operations of the Grammatical Component, which, in turn, constitutes the grammar of a natural language. Formulation operations convert communicative intention into pragmatic representations at the Interpersonal Level (IL) and semantic representations at the Representational Level (RL), which are then converted into morphosyntactic and phonological representations at the Morphosyntactic Level (ML) and Phonological Level (PL), respectively, through the Encoding operations.

As shown in Table 1, the FDG model presents a modular architecture with top-down organization, that is, from the communicative intention to the form of linguistic expressions. This form of top-down organization is “motivated by the assumption that a model of grammar will be more effective the more its organization resembles language processing in the individual” (HENGEVELD; MACKENZIE, 2008, p. 1-2).

By organizing the Grammatical Component with pragmatics governing semantics, both governing morphosyntax, and pragmatics, semantics, and morphosyntax governing phonology, as illustrated in Table 1, “FDG takes the functional approach to language to its logical extreme” (HENGEVELD; MACKENZIE, 2008, p. 13); this is because the functionalist stance implies the “hypothesis that a wide range of formal categories can be insightfully explained if they are brought into correspondence with semantic and pragmatic categories rooted in human cognition and interhuman communication” (HENGEVELD; MACKENZIE, 2010, p. 371). Thus, the GDF correlates functions to structures, both sedimented in the language repertoire over time, as primitives of Formulation and Coding operations, respectively.

The levels that form the Grammatical Component are structured each in its own way. What they have in common is that they are all layered. Each layer is composed of a head (h), which can be constrained by a modifier (σ) and/or an operator (л) and also has a function (φ). Heads and modifiers are lexical, while operators and functions are grammatical, and functions are relational, that is, they establish a relationship between units arranged in the same layer. Thus, the general representation of layers within levels is as in (4), where v is the variable of the relevant layer.

(4) (л v1: h (v1): σ (v1))φ

(4)	(л v1: h (v1): σ (v1))φ

The Interpersonal Level concerns the “formal aspects of a linguistic unit that reflect its role in the interaction between the Speaker and the Addressee” (HENGEVELD; MACKENZIE, 2008, p. 46). There, the discourse is organized in hierarchical layers, “an action, which may itself be internally complex, consisting of distinguishable smaller actions” (HENGEVELD; MACKENZIE, 2008, p. 47). The largest unit of verbal interaction relevant to grammatical analysis is the Move (M), which is characterized by its perlocutionary force; that is to say, it can require a reaction from the Addressee ((P)_A) or be itself a reaction of the Speaker ((P)_A) to what the Addressee said. A Move contains one or more Discourse Acts (A), which are defined as the smallest unit of communicative behavior, consisting of, at most, four components: an Illocution (F), the Speaker, the Addressee and a Communicated Content (C). A Communicated Content, in turn, contains what the Speaker wants to evoke in the communication with the Addressee. Each Communicated Content is made up of Subacts (SA), which can be of two types: Subacts of Reference (R) and Subacts of Ascription (T). While a Subact of Reference represents the Speaker’s attempt to evoke a referent in verbal interaction, e.g. university, a Subact of Ascription constitutes an action to apply a property to an entity, e.g. public. The structuring of the Interpersonal Level is represented in (5).⁶

(5) (M1: (A1: [(F1) (P1)S (P2)A (C1: (SA1) (C1))] (A1)) (M1))

(5)	(M1: (A1: [(F1) (P1)S (P2)A (C1: (SA1) (C1))] (A1)) (M1))

The Representational Level, in turn, concerns the semantic aspects of linguistic units. As Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2010, p. 377) observe, “[w]hereas the Interpersonal Level takes care of evocation, the Representational Level is responsible for designation”. The semantics of a language deals with the ways in which it relates to the possible worlds it describes, with regard to “the meanings of lexical units (lexical semantics) and complex units (compositional semantics)” (HENGEVELD; MACKENZIE, 2008, p. 129). Thus, entities, on the one hand, and layers, on the other hand, are taken as the semantic categories which they designate, which are, ultimately, “linguistically relevant manifestations of ontological categories” (HENGEVELD; MACKENZIE, 2010, p. 377). These categories are: Propositional Content (p), Episode (ep), State-of-Affairs (e), Configurational Property (f^c), Property (f), Individual (x), Location (l), Time (t), Manner (m), Quantity (q) and Reason (r), while only the first four constitute layers in Portuguese, as represented in (6).

(6) (p1: (ep1: (e1: (fc1: (α1) (fc1)) (e1)) (ep1)) (p1)) so that α is from any semantic category

(6)	(p1: (ep1: (e1: (fc1: (α1) (fc1)) (e1)) (ep1)) (p1)) so that α is from any semantic category

The Morphosyntactic Level, in turn, is responsible for receiving input from the two levels hierarchically above it, namely, the Interpersonal Level and the Representational Level, and converting it into a morphosyntactic formal representation. Interpersonal and representational distinctions are therefore encoded at the Morphosyntactic Level, which in turn has its own organization. The layers of this level, organized in a hierarchical manner, as represented in (7), are the Linguistic Expression (Le), the Clause (Cl), the Phrase (Xp), the Word (Xw), the Stem (Xs), the Root (Xr) and Affix (Aff). The Phrase, the Word, the Stem and the Root have as their head a lexical item coming from the Interpersonal Level or from the Representational Level. Depending on the lexeme class, each one receives a denomination, where X is equal to N for nouns, V for verbs, A for adjectives, Adv for adverbs, Ad for adpositions and G for grammatical words. Note, in (7), that the Morphosyntactic Level is recursive, that is, some layers may contain layers hierarchically equal to or superior to it.

(7) (Le1: [(Cl1: [(Cl2) (Xp1: [(Cl3) (Xp2) (Xw1: [(Xs1) (Xr1) (Aff1)] (Xw1))] (Xp1)) (Xw2)] (Cl1)) (Xp3) (Xw3)] (Le1))

(7)	(Le1: [(Cl1: [(Cl2) (Xp1: [(Cl3) (Xp2) (Xw1: [(Xs1) (Xr1) (Aff1)] (Xw1))] (Xp1)) (Xw2)] (Cl1)) (Xp3) (Xw3)] (Le1))

Finally, the Phonological Level is responsible for receiving input from the Morphosyntactic Level, with some coded distinctions coming from the levels above. Distinctions which could not be coded at the Morphosyntactic Level are transformed into the primitives through which the Phonological Level operates. The layers that make up the Phonological Level are, in descending hierarchical order, the Utterance (U), the Intonational Phrase (IP), the Phonological Phrase (PP), the Phonological Word (PW), the Foot (F) and, finally, the Syllable (S), as represented in (8).

(8) (U1: (IP1: (PP1: (PW1: (F1: (S1) (F1)) (PW1)) (PP1)) (IP1)) (U1))

(8)	(U1: (IP1: (PP1: (PW1: (F1: (S1) (F1)) (PW1)) (PP1)) (IP1)) (U1))

The Content Frame

Content frames are “the possible combinations of Subacts with pragmatic functions that may fill the head position of the Communicated Content” (HENGEVELD; MACKENZIE, 2008, p. 100). Pragmatic functions, in turn, concern the way the Speaker shapes his/her messages in relation to his/her expectations about the Addressee’s mental state and about the information that the Speaker deems available to them. Thus, the influence of these expectations on the formulation of linguistic expressions is called pragmatic function Topic, Focus and Contrast.

The pragmatic function Topic (_TOP) is assigned to a constituent when one intends to show how it relates to the knowledge constructed and stored in the Contextual Component. Based on the topicalized constituent, a comment is constructed, which is new knowledge to be introduced during the verbal interaction. The pragmatic function Focus (_FOC), in turn, indicates a strategic selection of the Speaker to highlight a new piece of information needed by the Addressee to add to his/her pragmatic information. The pragmatic function Contrast (_CONTR) compares one piece of information to another; in this cross-check, the Speaker seeks to highlight specific differences between pieces of information.

The ways in which the Speaker arranges the pragmatic functions in the Communicated Content reveals the flow of attention to the Addressee, indicating how s/he should relate the received message to the record established and stored in the Contextual Component. These modes – or content frames – are of three types: Thetic, Presentative and Categorical.

A Thetic construction presents the message globally, associated with only one cognitive act, so that all of it is focal, as acabou o ensino rudimentar (“the rudimentary teaching ended”) in (9). Pezatti (1992) calls this type of construction a “comment sentence” because it presents a situation – a comment – without pointing an element as the starting point of the flow of attention.

(9) -> acabou o ensino rudimentar (the rudimentary teaching ended) (AN97:Ensino Angola) IL: (AI: [... (CI: [(TI) (+id +s RI: –ensino rudimentar– (RI))] (CI))FOC] (AI))

(9)	-> acabou o ensino rudimentar (the rudimentary teaching ended) (AN97:Ensino Angola)
	IL:	(AI: [... (CI: [(TI) (+id +s RI: –ensino rudimentar– (RI))] (CI))FOC] (AI))

A Presentative construction, as há o treino técnico específico (“there is the specific technical training”) in (10), presents information which, at the same time, is new, therefore focal, and topical, because, based on it, a commentary is constructed (in the occurrence in question: rehearsed plays, free kicks, directs, corners).

(10) -> há o treino técnico específico, que é jogadas ensaiadas, tipo livres, directos, cantos (there is the specific technical training, which is rehearsed plays, free kicks, directs, corners) (PT95:JogarFutebol) IL: (AI: [... (CI: (+id +s RI: –treino técnico específico– (RI))TOP-FOC (CI))] (AI))

(10)	-> há o treino técnico específico, que é jogadas ensaiadas, tipo livres, directos, cantos (there is the specific technical training, which is rehearsed plays, free kicks, directs, corners) (PT95:JogarFutebol)
	IL:	(AI: [... (CI: (+id +s RI: –treino técnico específico– (RI))TOP-FOC (CI))] (AI))

Finally, Categorical Constructions can exhibit both the Topic and Focus pragmatic function, in order to determine the parts of the message which are particularly salient, those which are chosen as the Speaker’s starting point, from which the flow of attention is established. Portuguese, according to Pezatti (2014), is a language in which Categorical constructions are Topic-oriented, that is, in general, the information which is chosen as the starting point of the flow of attention is what the Speaker considers to be shared with the Addressee. In (11), eu (“I”), a participant in the verbal interaction and, therefore, available in the immediate communicating situation, performs the pragmatic function Topic in a Topic-oriented Categorical construction.

(11) -> eu sou mais especializado na trompete (I’m more expert in the trumpet) (TP96: Banda) IL: (AI: [... (CI: [(TI) (RI: [+S –A] (RI))TOP (+id +s RJ: –trompete– (RJ))] (CI))] (AI))

(11)	-> eu sou mais especializado na trompete (I’m more expert in the trumpet) (TP96: Banda)
	IL:	(AI: [... (CI: [(TI) (RI: [+S –A] (RI))TOP (+id +s RJ: –trompete– (RJ))] (CI))] (AI))

The first coordinate member in (12) is a Topic-oriented Categorical construction, in which você (“you”) performs the pragmatic function Topic.

(12) -> você, quando vai ficando numa certa idade, você tem que, você não depende de tudo, mas de um você depende. é ou não é? você não, não precisa depender de tudo que é vizinho, mas de um (you, when you reach a certain age, you have to, you do not depend on everything, but on one you depend. is it or is it not? you do not, do not need to depend on everyone that is a neighbor, but on one at least) (BR80:ViverOutros)

(12)

-> você, quando vai ficando numa certa idade, você tem que, você não depende de tudo, mas de um você depende. é ou não é? você não, não precisa depender de tudo que é vizinho, mas de um (you, when you reach a certain age, you have to, you do not depend on everything, but on one you depend. is it or is it not? you do not, do not need to depend on everyone that is a neighbor, but on one at least) (BR80:ViverOutros)

However, the clause member coordinated by mas_SN in (12) is not the focus of this article, but the second member, in which there would supposedly occur deletion, such as, você precisa depender de um vizinho, or as sim o que circula nos nossos vasos é sangue in (13).

(13) -> duzentos anos antes de Cristo, Galeno [...] conseguiu demonstrar que o que circula nos nossos vasos não é ar mas sim sangue. (Two hundred years before Christ, Galen [...] was able to demonstrate that what circulates in our vessels is not air, but indeed blood.) (PT89:PaiMedicina) IL: (AI: [(FI: DECL (FI)) (PI)S (PJ)A (CI: (RI: –sangue– (RI)) (CI))FOC-CONTR] (AI))

(13)	-> duzentos anos antes de Cristo, Galeno [...] conseguiu demonstrar que o que circula nos nossos vasos não é ar mas sim sangue. (Two hundred years before Christ, Galen [...] was able to demonstrate that what circulates in our vessels is not air, but indeed blood.) (PT89:PaiMedicina)
	IL:	(AI: [(FI: DECL (FI)) (PI)S (PJ)A (CI: (RI: –sangue– (RI)) (CI))FOC-CONTR] (AI))

These members consist of Discourse Acts of Declarative Illocution (DECL) whose Communicated Content is formed by only one Subact, as represented in (13).⁷ Single Subacts which make up a Discourse Act “are always Focus by default” (MACKENZIE, 2018, p. 47). Since it is formed by only one Subact which evokes focal information, the content frame is Thetic.

The second member of the adversative substitutive coordination, in fact, as Galvão Passetti (2021) attests, is always Thetic and composed by a single Subact, as the Speaker intends to add only one piece of information to the pragmatic information of the Addressee, a piece of information which replaces another, conveyed in the first coordinated member. In order to instruct the Addressee to substitute one piece of information for another, the Speaker does a cross-check; more specifically, the Communicated Content of the second member, in addition to being focal, conveys the pragmatic function Contrast, coded by mas. Thus, the non-instantiated representation of the second member of the substitutive coordination is (14).

(14) (A1: [(F1: DECL (F1)) (P1)S (P2)A (C1: (SA1) (C1))FOC-CONTR] (A1))

(14)	(A1: [(F1: DECL (F1)) (P1)S (P2)A (C1: (SA1) (C1))FOC-CONTR] (A1))

Predication frames and the role of the Contextual Component

Predication frames, in turn, are the inventory of predications available in a given language and are marked by their quantitative and qualitative valency. Quantitative valency refers to the number of semantic units which constitute a predication frame, whereas qualitative valency refers to the semantic functions which they take on. These semantic functions are Actor (_A), Undergoer (_U) and Locative (_L).

In the occurrence in (15), the Configurational Property of the first member of the coordination is represented by (f^c_i). There, the Individual cê (“ya”), the Propositional Content valor (“value”) and the Individual ídolo (“idol”) perform the semantic functions Actor, Undergoer and Locative, respectively, being linked to the three-place predicate dar (“give”).

(15) Inf.: é totalmente necessário assim... o ídolo não mas uma influência assim... ídolo não... mas uma influência sim (It is totally necessary, like... The idol no, but an influence, like... The idol no... But an influence yes) Doc.: então cê num dá tanto valor ao ídolo mas à música dele (So ya don’t give too much value to the idol, but to his music) (AC-043, RO: L. 273) RL: (fci: [(fi: da- (fi)) (1 xi)A (intens pi: –valor– (pi))U (xj: –ídolo– (xj))L] (fci))

(15)	Inf.: é totalmente necessário assim... o ídolo não mas uma influência assim... ídolo não... mas uma influência sim (It is totally necessary, like... The idol no, but an influence, like... The idol no... But an influence yes) Doc.: então cê num dá tanto valor ao ídolo mas à música dele (So ya don’t give too much value to the idol, but to his music) (AC-043, RO: L. 273)
	RL:	(fci: [(fi: da- (fi)) (1 xi)A (intens pi: –valor– (pi))U (xj: –ídolo– (xj))L] (fci))

According to McCawley (1991), who follows the theoretical model of Transformational Grammar, in the second member of a coordination such as this, the syntactic constituents expressed in the first member are deleted. The tree representation of cê num dá tanto valor ao ídolo mas à música dele from (15), following this concept, is according to (16).

(16)

(16)

(17) a Cê num dá tanto valor ao ídolo, mas cê dá valor à música dele. (Ya don’t give too much value to the idol, but ya give value to his music) b Cê num dá tanto valor ao ídolo, mas à música dele. (Ya don’t give too much value the idol, but to his music) a’ Embora cê num dê tanto valor ao ídolo, cê dá valor à música dele. (Although ya don’t give too much value the idol, ya give value to his music) b’ * Embora cê num dê tanto valor ao ídolo, à música dele. (*Although ya don’t give too much value the idol, his music)

(17)	a	Cê num dá tanto valor ao ídolo, mas cê dá valor à música dele. (Ya don’t give too much value to the idol, but ya give value to his music)
	b	Cê num dá tanto valor ao ídolo, mas à música dele. (Ya don’t give too much value the idol, but to his music)
	a’	Embora cê num dê tanto valor ao ídolo, cê dá valor à música dele. (Although ya don’t give too much value the idol, ya give value to his music)
	b’	* Embora cê num dê tanto valor ao ídolo, à música dele. (*Although ya don’t give too much value the idol, his music)

According to the representation in (16), the coordination in (15) is formed by two sentences, as in (17a), before its transformation by deletion. According to Harris (1968; 1976), deletion does not change the meaning of a sentence. However, (17a) does not have the same meaning as conveyed by (17b), the real linguistic expression under analysis; this is proven by the fact that the Communicated Content cê dá valor à música dele from (17a) can be codified by a concessive construction with embora (“although”), as in (17a’), which is not the case in (17b’), the result of the same test, now applied to (17b). In other words, (17a) is a coordination where mas stands for the rhetorical function Concession, whereas in (17b), mas codifies Contrast with the role of substitution, i.e., mas_SN. Hence, the paraphrasis in (17b’) is not possible, given that this test only applies to constructions where mas is concessive, i.e., mas_PA.

Another proposal for an analysis, of a generativist nature, is made by Munn (1993). Accordingly to that author, mas à música dele would be a constituent of a sentence, thus being a subclause constituent. This analysis is shown in (18).

(18)

(18)

However, (18) implies that the second member (à música dele) is not a sentence, thus not having a propositional value, according to Transformational Grammar. For FDG, a proposition amounts to a Propositional Content, a third-order unit, according to Lyons’ (1977, p. 442-447) characterization, which is only qualified “in terms of propositional attitudes (certainty, doubt, disbelief) and/or in terms of their source or origin (shared common knowledge, sensory evidence, inference)” (HENGEVELD; MACKENZIE, 2010, p. 377).

However, the coordination members in focus here are always Propositional Contents (PEZATTI; PAULA; GALVÃO PASSETTI, 2019; PEZATTI; GALVÃO PASSETTI, 2021; GALVÃO PASSETTI, 2021), since they can be assessed in terms of certainty or doubt, i.e., they are subject to epistemic judgment. In (13), for instance, repeated for convenience in (19), the Propositional Content sangue (“blood”) displays the Speaker’s attitude of certainty towards what is being communicated, indicated by the doxastic subjective epistemic modality operator (dox), marked by sim (“indeed”).⁸ This kind of operator “permits the Speaker to indicate that s/he believes that the Propositional Content s/he is presenting is true.” (HENGEVELD; MACKENZIE, 2008, p. 153).

(19) -> duzentos anos antes de Cristo, Galeno [...] conseguiu demonstrar que o que circula nos nossos vasos não é ar mas sim sangue. (Two hundred years before Christ, Galen [...] was able to demonstrate that what circulates in our vessels is not air, but indeed blood.) (PT89:PaiMedicina) RL: (dox pi: (fci: [(xi) (xj: –sangue– (xj))] (fci)) (pi)) ↘ ML: (Gwi: sim (Gwi)) (Nwi: –sangue– (Nwi))

(19)	-> duzentos anos antes de Cristo, Galeno [...] conseguiu demonstrar que o que circula nos nossos vasos não é ar mas sim sangue. (Two hundred years before Christ, Galen [...] was able to demonstrate that what circulates in our vessels is not air, but indeed blood.) (PT89:PaiMedicina)
	RL:	(dox pi: (fci: [(xi) (xj: –sangue– (xj))] (fci)) (pi))
		↘
	ML:	(Gwi: sim (Gwi)) (Nwi: –sangue– (Nwi))

Toosarvandani (2013) argues that, for English, both MacCawley’s (1991) and Munn’s (1993) analyses are correct, given that they depend on the position filled by not in the sentence; if not precedes the main verb, thus being subject to cliticization, there is coordination of two sentences, the second one having syntactic constituents which have been deleted; if not precedes the constituent to be replaced, then a coordination of intra-sentence terms occurs.

To explain the phenomenon, from the perspective of FDG, we propose that these non-clause members result from the kind of predication frame in which they are formulated; they are derived from predication frames in which the predicate is non-verbal: Identificational, Classificational or Relational. In general, these predication types need a support copula, which is inserted in the Morphosyntactic Level.

An Identificational predication, also called equational predication in literature – for instance, in Jakobson (1975) –, equates two semantic entities of the same category at the Representational Level, which are evoked by two Subacts of Reference at the Interpersonal Level, as shown in (20).

(20) IL: (C1: [(R1) (R2)] (C1)) so that α1 and α2 are from the same semantic category RL: (fc1: [(α1) (α2)] (fc1))

(20)	IL:	(C1: [(R1) (R2)] (C1))	so that	α1 and α2 are from the same semantic category
RL:	(fc1: [(α1) (α2)] (fc1))

The second member of the coordination in (3) and (15), resumed for convenience in (21a) and (21b), respectively, displays an Identificational predication frame, as represented in (22).

(21) a Não está em jogo o aspecto monetário, mas sim o da cultura. (The monetary aspect is not at play, but indeed that of culture) b Cê num dá tanto valor ao ídolo, mas à música dele. (Ya don’t give so much value to the idol, but to his music)

(21)	a	Não está em jogo o aspecto monetário, mas sim o da cultura. (The monetary aspect is not at play, but indeed that of culture)
	b	Cê num dá tanto valor ao ídolo, mas à música dele. (Ya don’t give so much value to the idol, but to his music)

(22) a (dox pi: (fci: [(xi) (xj: –da cultura– (xj))] (fci)) (pi)) b (pi: (fci: [(xi) (xj: –música dele– (xj))] (fci)) (pi))

(22)	a	(dox pi: (fci: [(xi) (xj: –da cultura– (xj))] (fci)) (pi))
	b	(pi: (fci: [(xi) (xj: –música dele– (xj))] (fci)) (pi))

In (22),⁹ we notice that the semantic entities of the predication of the first member – estar em jogo, from (21a), and cê, dar and valor, from (21b) – are not resumed in the second one. This would amount to a semantic explanation, based on FDG, of MacCawley’s (1991) proposition. Likewise, (x_j) – o da cultura, from (21a), and a música dele, from (21b) – are not part of the Configurational Property – i.e., predication – of the first member, which, in turn, would be in line with Munn’s (1993) proposition.

This paper sets forth another explanation: the second member has a two-place Configurational Property, so that one of the two places is instantiated by a semantic entity with an absent head. Thus, both in (22a) and in (22b), the Individual corresponding to (x_i) has no designation (has no head). This semantic entity is linked to the register established by the first member and stored in the Contextual Component as short-term information.

We ought to provide further explanation about the role of the Contextual Component in the formulation of the non-clause member in this coordination. According to Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2014), the Contextual Component holds situational and discursive information which is relevant for the grammar of a language. Situational information is related to Participants, time and location of the current verbal interaction, whereas discursive information refers to what is activated in the discourse, mainly in the co-text. Both pieces of information are relevant, for instance, in the realization of deitics and anaphors, respectively.

According to Hengeveld and Mackenzie’s (2014) proposition, the Contextual Component is structured similarly to the Grammatical Component, featuring Strata which correspond to the four levels of grammar.¹⁰ Thus, when a speech act is produced, the representations of the four levels of grammar feed into the four corresponding Strata of the Contextual Component. An example for this process is provided in (23a),¹¹ where the first member of the coordination (23), already uttered, is part of the Discoursal information in the Contextual Component.

(23) Não está em jogo o aspecto monetário, mas sim o da cultura. (Not the monetary aspect is at play, but indeed that of culture) 1st member: (pi: (pres epi: (sim neg ei: (cfci: [(fi: est-_em_jogo (fi)) (pj: (fcj: [(fj: aspecto (fj) (xi: (fk: monet- (fk)) (xi))Ass] (fcj)) (pj))U] (fci)) (ei)) (epi)) (pi)) 2nd member: (dox pk: (fck: [(pj) (pl: (fcl: [(fj) (pm: (fl: cultura (fl)) (pm))Ref] (fcl)) (pl))] (fck)) (pk))

(23)	Não está em jogo o aspecto monetário, mas sim o da cultura. (Not the monetary aspect is at play, but indeed that of culture)
	1st member:	(pi: (pres epi: (sim neg ei: (cfci: [(fi: est-_em_jogo (fi)) (pj: (fcj: [(fj: aspecto (fj) (xi: (fk: monet- (fk)) (xi))Ass] (fcj)) (pj))U] (fci)) (ei)) (epi)) (pi))
	2nd member:	(dox pk: (fck: [(pj) (pl: (fcl: [(fj) (pm: (fl: cultura (fl)) (pm))Ref] (fcl)) (pl))] (fck)) (pk))

Grammatical Component Contextual Component (23a) RL: (dox pk: (fck: [(pj) (pl: (fcl: [(fj) (pm: (fl: cultura (fl)) (pm))Ref] (fcl)) (pl))] (fck)) (pk)) Discoursal: p ep E fc α f ♦ (pi) (pres epi) (sim neg ei) (fcj) (xi)Ass (fk) monet- (f j ) aspect (cfci) (p j ) U (fi) est- _em_ jogo

	Grammatical Component		Contextual Component
(23a)	RL:	(dox pk: (fck: [(pj) (pl: (fcl: [(fj) (pm: (fl: cultura (fl)) (pm))Ref] (fcl)) (pl))] (fck)) (pk))	Discoursal:
			p	ep	E	fc	α	f	♦
			(pi)
				(pres epi)
					(sim neg ei)
						(fcj)
							(xi)Ass
								(fk)
									monet-
								(f j )
									aspect
						(cfci)
							(p j ) U	(fi)
									est- _em_ jogo

Upon producing the second member, the Speaker reactivates (p_j) and (f_j) from the first member. Thereby, these entities return to the Grammatical Component by means of the operation of Contextualization, and in this process, they retrieve the hierarchical structure relations to which they belong in the Contextual Component. In (23a), for instance, the entity (p_j) stored in the Contextual Component is contextualized in the formulation of the second member of the coordination, specifying it as having been an Undergoer argument of the Configurational Property (^cf^c_i), which, in turn, is the head of the State-of-Affairs (sim neg e_i). This State-of-Affairs alone constitutes the Episode (pres ep_i) conveyed by the Propositional Content (p_i), meaning that (p_j) it is reactivated with the memory of the Undergoer argument não está em jogo o aspecto monetário (“the monetary aspect is not at play”).

The same occurs when the Speaker utters mas à música dele in (24). In this case, as shown in (24a), (x_j) is resumed twice: as an argument of (f^c_j) and as a modifier of (x_k) – a música.

(24) Cê num dá tanto valor ao ídolo, mas à música dele. (Ya don’t give too much value to the idol, but to his music) 1st member: (pi: (pres epi: (sim neg ei: (fci: [(fi: da- (fi)) (1 xi)A (intens pj: (fj: valor (fj)) (pj))U (xj: (fk: ídolo (fk)) (xj))L] (fci)) (ei)) (epi)) (pi)) 2nd member: (pk: (fcj: [(xj) (xk: (fl: música (fl)) (xk): (1 xj)Ref (xk))] (fcj)) (pk))

(24)	Cê num dá tanto valor ao ídolo, mas à música dele. (Ya don’t give too much value to the idol, but to his music)
	1st member:	(pi: (pres epi: (sim neg ei: (fci: [(fi: da- (fi)) (1 xi)A (intens pj: (fj: valor (fj)) (pj))U (xj: (fk: ídolo (fk)) (xj))L] (fci)) (ei)) (epi)) (pi))
	2nd member:	(pk: (fcj: [(xj) (xk: (fl: música (fl)) (xk): (1 xj)Ref (xk))] (fcj)) (pk))

Grammatical Component Contextual Component (24a) RL: (pk: (fcj: [(xj) (xk: (fl: música (fl)) (xk): (1 xj)Ref (xk))] (fcj)) (pk)) Discoursal: p ep e fc α f ♦ (pi) (pres epi) (sim neg ei) (fci) (x j ) L (fk) ídolo (intens pj)U (fj) valor (1 xi)A (fi) da-

	Grammatical Component		Contextual Component
(24a)	RL:	(pk: (fcj: [(xj) (xk: (fl: música (fl)) (xk): (1 xj)Ref (xk))] (fcj)) (pk))	Discoursal:
			p	ep	e	fc	α	f	♦
			(pi)
				(pres epi)
					(sim neg ei)
						(fci)
							(x j ) L
								(fk)
									ídolo
							(intens pj)U
								(fj)
									valor
							(1 xi)A	(fi)
									da-

The arrangement of the Discoursal information in (24a) shows that the Contextual Component, in addition to preserving hierarchical relations, records the semantic entities in stacks, according to their features. The entities uttered last are arranged on top of the stack of entities with the same semantic feature. In the Discoursal information of (24a), for instance, (x_j)_L is on top of (intens p_j)_U on the stack because ao ídolo is codified after valor, i.e., ao ídolo is activated in the discourse after valor. “The important thing here is that horizontally the hierarchical structure is respected, while vertically the stack-relations between units of like rank are represented” (HENGEVELD; MACKENZIE, 2014, p. 213).

Other than being Identificational, the non-clause member can have the Classificational predication frame. In a Classificational predication, as in the case of an Identificational predication, two semantic entities of the same category are linked; the difference is that, in the Classificational predication, one of the entities is evoked at the Interpersonal Level by a Subact of Ascription which predicates to another entity, classifying it by means of the Property which fills its head position, as shown in (25).

(25) IL: (C1: [ (T1) (R1) ] (C1)) so that α1 and α2 are from the same semantic category RL: (fc1: [(α1: (f1) (α1)) (α2)U] (fc1))

(25)	IL:	(C1: [	(T1)	(R1)	] (C1))	so that	α1 and α2 are from the same semantic category
	RL:	(fc1: [(α1: (f1) (α1)) (α2)U] (fc1))

In Classificational predications in Portuguese, indefinite pronouns mark at the Morphosyntactic Level the entity whose Property classifies another entity, such as the pronoun uma, from the Noun Phrase uma sala de jantar (“a dining room”) in (26).

(26) -> a copa não é absolutamente como nós vemos na cidade. a copa é uma sala de jantar (The pantry is not at all like we see in the city, the pantry is a dining room) (BR72:Fazenda) RL: (pfci: [(li: –sala de jantar– (li)) (lj: –copa– (lj))U] (fci))

(26)	-> a copa não é absolutamente como nós vemos na cidade. a copa é uma sala de jantar (The pantry is not at all like we see in the city, the pantry is a dining room) (BR72:Fazenda)
	RL:	(pfci: [(li: –sala de jantar– (li)) (lj: –copa– (lj))U] (fci))

In (27), the second member has a Classificational predication frame, so that uma influência (“an influence”) classifies (p_k), a semantic entity with an absent head which is linked to the registry established by the co-text and stored in the Contextual Component.

(27) Doc.: e qual que é a importância desse... desses ídolos po pessoal que tá começan(d)o agora?... fazê(r) música... qual é a importância deles?... pra você né?... que faz música. (And what is the importance of these... These idols for people that are starting now?... Making music... What is their importance?... For you, right?... As a musician. Inf.: é totalmente necessário assim... o ídolo não mas umainfluência (It’s totally necessary, like... Not the idol, but an influence) (AC-043, RO: L. 273) RL: (pi: (fci: [(pj: (fi: influência (fi)) (pj)) (pk)U] (fci)) (pi))

(27)	Doc.: e qual que é a importância desse... desses ídolos po pessoal que tá começan(d)o agora?... fazê(r) música... qual é a importância deles?... pra você né?... que faz música. (And what is the importance of these... These idols for people that are starting now?... Making music... What is their importance?... For you, right?... As a musician. Inf.: é totalmente necessário assim... o ídolo não mas umainfluência (It’s totally necessary, like... Not the idol, but an influence) (AC-043, RO: L. 273)
	RL:	(pi: (fci: [(pj: (fi: influência (fi)) (pj)) (pk)U] (fci)) (pi))

Both members of the coordination in (27), semantically represented in (28), are non-clause members. The entity with an absent head which constitutes the predication of both members is co-indexed. The semantic entity classified in the second member originates from the reactivation of (p_j) from the Discoursal information of (28a). Since it is reactivated twice, (p_j), it moves up in the stack to which it belongs, as we see when comparing the Discoursal information of (28a) to that of (28b).

(28) É totalmente necessário, o ídolo não, mas uma influência (It’s totally necessary, not the idol, but an influence). Co-text: (pi: (pres epi: (sim ei: (pfci: [(fi: necessário (fi)) (pj)U] (fci)) (ei): (fj: total (fj))Means (ei)) (epi)) (pi)) 1st member: (pk: (fcj: [(pl: (fk: ídolo (fk)) (pl)) (pj)] (fcj)) (pk)) 2nd member: (pm: (fck: [(pn: (fl: influência (fl)) (pn)) (pj)U] (fck)) (pm))

(28)	É totalmente necessário, o ídolo não, mas uma influência (It’s totally necessary, not the idol, but an influence).
	Co-text:	(pi: (pres epi: (sim ei: (pfci: [(fi: necessário (fi)) (pj)U] (fci)) (ei): (fj: total (fj))Means (ei)) (epi)) (pi))
	1st member:	(pk: (fcj: [(pl: (fk: ídolo (fk)) (pl)) (pj)] (fcj)) (pk))
	2nd member:	(pm: (fck: [(pn: (fl: influência (fl)) (pn)) (pj)U] (fck)) (pm))

Grammatical Component Contextual Component (28a) RL: (pk: (fcj: [(pl: (fk: ídolo (fk)) (pl)) (pj)] (fcj)) (pk)) Discoursal: p Ep e fc α f ♦ (pi) (pres epi) (sim ei) (pfci) (fj)Means total (fi) necessário (p j ) U (28b) RL: (pm: (fck: [(pn: (fl: influência (fl)) (pn)) (pj)U] (fck)) (pm)) Discoursal: p Ep e fc α f ♦ (pk) (fcj) (pl) (fk) ídolo (p j ) (pi) (pres epi) (sim ei) (pfci) (fj)Means total (fi) necessário

	Grammatical Component		Contextual Component
(28a)	RL:	(pk: (fcj: [(pl: (fk: ídolo (fk)) (pl)) (pj)] (fcj)) (pk))	Discoursal:
			p	Ep	e	fc	α	f	♦
			(pi)
				(pres epi)
					(sim ei)
						(pfci)
								(fj)Means
									total
								(fi)
									necessário
							(p j ) U
(28b)	RL:	(pm: (fck: [(pn: (fl: influência (fl)) (pn)) (pj)U] (fck)) (pm))	Discoursal:
			p	Ep	e	fc	α	f	♦
			(pk)
						(fcj)
							(pl)
								(fk)
									ídolo
							(p j )
			(pi)
				(pres epi)
					(sim ei)
						(pfci)
								(fj)Means
									total
								(fi)
									necessário

An important distinction which depends on the activation of the Contextual Component in the formulation of the substitutive adversative coordination is related to the negation scope existing in the first member, and, consequently, the order in which não stands in that member. As Galvão Passetti (2021) attests, in those cases, the negation particle is codified at the Morphosyntactic Level in three ways:

1. At the initial position of the Verb Phrase, in case of a clause member;

2. Before the Word or Phrase which codifies the information to be replaced, in case of a non-clause member;

3. After the Word or Phrase which codifies the information to be replaced, in case of a non-clause member.

The pre-verb position of não, as in the occurrences in (3) and (15), codifies the State-of-Affairs negation operator, indicating non-occurrence of this state in a real or possible world. Concerning the first non-clause member, the position of não indicates that:

1. The speaker replaces a piece of information “which s/he presumes to be part of the pragmatic information available to the listener for another one, establishing, in Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2018) terms, a disagreement with what the Addressee might believe”¹² (GALVÃO PASSETTI, 2021, p. 179, our translation). In this case, não precedes the coordinated Word or Phrase;

2. The information to be replaced “has already been evoked in the discourse and stored in the Contextual Component, establishing, in Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2018) terms, a denial of what has been previously said, i.e., the negation of a Communicated Content”¹³ (GALVÃO PASSETTI, 2021, p. 181, our translation). In this case, não comes after the coordinated Word or Phrase.

In (27), whose first member is represented in (29) at the Interpersonal and Morphosyntactical levels, não comes after the phrase o ídolo. This only happens because the referent ídolo has already been evoked in the co-text, thus appearing in the Discoursal information of the Contextual Component; in other words, não only fills the position after the Word or coordinated Phrase if the information codified by them is available in the registry that has been established and stored in the Contextual Component.¹⁴

(29) O ídolo não, mas uma influência (Not the idol, but an influence). IL: (AI: [... (neg CI: –ídolo– (CI))FOC] (AI)) ↘ ML: (Npi: –o ídolo– (Npi)) (Gwi: não (Gwi))

(29)	O ídolo não, mas uma influência (Not the idol, but an influence).
	IL:	(AI: [... (neg CI: –ídolo– (CI))FOC] (AI))
		↘
	ML:	(Npi: –o ídolo– (Npi)) (Gwi: não (Gwi))

In the quoted examples, an argument from the predication of the first member is replaced: o aspecto monetário (“monetary aspect”), replaced by o da cultura (“that of culture”) in (3); o ídolo (“the idol”), replaced by a música dele (“his music”) in (15); and o ídolo (“the idol”), replaced by uma influência (“an influence”) em (27). In these cases, the predication frame of the second member is Identificational or Classificational. When the Speaker intends to replace a modifier of the first member, the predication frame activated for the second member is Relational. In this type of predication, “a phrase marked with a relator such as an adposition [in case of Portuguese, a preposition] or a case marker [such as the suffix -mente in Portuguese] is used ascriptively” (HENGEVELD; MACKENZIE, 2008, p. 190), i.e., at the Representational Level, it represents a Property, evoked by a Subact of Ascription whose head is performed by a Subact of Reference with the role of evoking an entity that performs some semantic function. The Relational predication frame is represented in (30).

(30) IL: (C1: [(T1: (R1) (T1)) (R2) ] (C1)) so that α1 and α2 are from any semantic category RL: (fc1: [(f1: (α1)φ (f1)) (α2)U] (fc1))

(30)	IL:	(C1: [(T1: (R1) (T1)) (R2) ] (C1))	so that	α1 and α2 are from any semantic category
	RL:	(fc1: [(f1: (α1)φ (f1)) (α2)U] (fc1))

One example of relational predication, from Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2008, p. 204, our adaptation), is (31).

(31) The meeting is in room 106. RL: (fci: [(fi: (li: –room 106– (li))L (fi)) (ei: – meeting– (ei))U] (fci))

(31)	The meeting is in room 106.
	RL:	(fci: [(fi: (li: –room 106– (li))L (fi)) (ei: – meeting– (ei))U] (fci))

In (31), room 106, a Location (l_i), is the Locative (_L) where the meeting, a State-of-Affairs (e_i), takes place. The semantic function of Locative is codified by the Grammatical Word in, the head of the Adpositional Phrase in room 106. In other words, in room 106 predicates the meeting.

In (32),¹⁵ conversely, the Instrument modifier (_Ins) em atos (“in acts”) is replaced by em palavras (“in words”), which is related to the Configurational Property (f^c_i) without designation (without head), letting the Addressee recover it in the registry established and stored in the Contextual Component, to which (f^c_i) is related, thus being co-indexed with the Configurational Property ela judiar dele (“she mistreating him”).

(32) Inf.: ele sofreu um acidente que ele ficô(u) totalmente deformado [...] tinha que dá(r) banho nele adivinha quem era?... a esposa dele... que tinha acabado de sê(r) traída. aí cê imagina né? diz que ela quase num judiô(u) dele pelo menos NÃO assim em atos mas em palavras né? (He had just suffered an accident that left him completely disfigured [...] he needed someone to give him a shower guess who?... His wife... Who had just been cheated on, so ya can imagine, right? They say that she almost didn’t mistreat him, at least NOT, like, in acts, but in words, right? (AC-050; NR: 174) RL: (pi: (fci: [(fi: (m ei: –palavra– (ei))Ins (fi)) (fcj)U] (fci)) (pi))

(32)	Inf.: ele sofreu um acidente que ele ficô(u) totalmente deformado [...] tinha que dá(r) banho nele adivinha quem era?... a esposa dele... que tinha acabado de sê(r) traída. aí cê imagina né? diz que ela quase num judiô(u) dele pelo menos NÃO assim em atos mas em palavras né? (He had just suffered an accident that left him completely disfigured [...] he needed someone to give him a shower guess who?... His wife... Who had just been cheated on, so ya can imagine, right? They say that she almost didn’t mistreat him, at least NOT, like, in acts, but in words, right? (AC-050; NR: 174)
	RL:	(pi: (fci: [(fi: (m ei: –palavra– (ei))Ins (fi)) (fcj)U] (fci)) (pi))

In (32), just as in (27), both coordinated members are non-clause members, but in (32), unlike (27), não precedes the first member of the coordination. This is due to the fact that em atos is an instrument, whereby one could mistreat the man in question, as the Addressee could infer, interpreting judiar as being related to physical, but not to psychological violence. The Speaker predicts this potential interpretation of the Addressee and then refutes it. Thus, in (33), where both members of the coordination are resumed and represented (32), neg specifies (p_j), indicating that this proposition, taken as an assumption of the Addressee, is not true. Moreover, the Grammatical Word não, in this occurrence, could not come after em atos, since atos has not been activated in the preceding discourse, and therefore is not part of the Discoursal information of the Contextual Component.

In non-clause members whose predication frame is relational, a layer of the Representational Level is resumed from the Discoursal information and reactivated as an argument in the Grammatical Component. Consequently, this layer is then stacked as an argument (α); in other words, this semantic entity moves to another stack in the Discoursal information of the Contextual Component, as we can notice by comparing the Discoursal information of (33a) with (33b).

(33) Diz que ela quase num judiou dele, pelo menos não em atos, mas em palavras.16 (They say that she barely mistreated him, at least not in acts, but in words) Co-text: (pi: (past epi: (sim neg ei: (fci: [(fi: judia- (fi)) (1 xi)A (1 xj)L] (fci)) (ei)) (epi)) (pi)) 1st member: (neg pj: (fcj: [(fj: (m ej: (fk: ato (fk)) (ej))Ins (fj)) (fci)U] (fcj)) (pj)) 2nd member: (pk: (fck: [(fl: (m ek: (fm: palavra (fm)) (ek))Ins (fl)) (fci)U] (fck)) (pk))

(33)	Diz que ela quase num judiou dele, pelo menos não em atos, mas em palavras.16 (They say that she barely mistreated him, at least not in acts, but in words)
	Co-text:	(pi: (past epi: (sim neg ei: (fci: [(fi: judia- (fi)) (1 xi)A (1 xj)L] (fci)) (ei)) (epi)) (pi))
	1st member:	(neg pj: (fcj: [(fj: (m ej: (fk: ato (fk)) (ej))Ins (fj)) (fci)U] (fcj)) (pj))
	2nd member:	(pk: (fck: [(fl: (m ek: (fm: palavra (fm)) (ek))Ins (fl)) (fci)U] (fck)) (pk))

Grammatical Component Contextual Component (33a) RL: (neg pj: (fcj: [(fj: (m ej: (fk: ato (fk)) (ej))Ins (fj)) (fci)U] (fcj)) (pj)) Discoursal: p ep e fc α f ♦ (pi) (past epi) (sim neg ei) (f c i ) (1 xj)L (1 xi)A (fi) judia- (33b) RL: (pk: (fck: [(fl: (m ek: (fm: palavra (fm)) (ek))Ins (fl)) (fci)U] (fck)) (pk)) Discoursal: p ep e fc α f ♦ (neg pj) (fcj) (fj) (m ej)Ins (fk) ato (f c i ) U (pi) (past epi) (sim neg ei) (1 xj)L (1 xi)A (fi) judia-

	Grammatical Component		Contextual Component
(33a)	RL:	(neg pj: (fcj: [(fj: (m ej: (fk: ato (fk)) (ej))Ins (fj)) (fci)U] (fcj)) (pj))	Discoursal:
			p	ep	e	fc	α	f	♦
			(pi)
				(past epi)
					(sim neg ei)
						(f c i )
							(1 xj)L
							(1 xi)A
								(fi)
									judia-
(33b)	RL:	(pk: (fck: [(fl: (m ek: (fm: palavra (fm)) (ek))Ins (fl)) (fci)U] (fck)) (pk))	Discoursal:
			p	ep	e	fc	α	f	♦
			(neg pj)
						(fcj)
								(fj)
							(m ej)Ins
								(fk)
									ato
							(f c i ) U
			(pi)
				(past epi)
					(sim neg ei)
							(1 xj)L
							(1 xi)A
								(fi)
									judia-

This is a Configurational Property which is predicated in (32), given that the semantic function of Instrument is related to this layer. Other layers can also be linked, such as the layers of Propositional Content, Episode and State-of-Affairs, depending on the semantic function performed by the member codified with a preposition or with a case marker.

Based on typological evidence, Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2008) propose that Company, Instrument and Beneficiary modifiers are the core ones, being linked to the Configurational Property, whereas those of evidentiality and those which reveal propositional attitudes of the Speaker are more peripheral, being related to the layer of Propositional Content. Among them are those of State-of-Affairs and Episode. A semantic function whose scope is the State-of-Affairs is Means (_Means), illustrated in (34) and codified by the case marker –mente, in fisicamente (“physically”).

(34) Inf.: eu e o I. a gente num tinha muitas assim... éh coisas iguais assim sentimentalmente mas sim fisicamente as pessoas pensavam que ele era meu irmão porque eu era eu sô(u) loira ele também é loiro então... nem parecia casais de namorados (I and I., we didn’t have many, like... uh things in common, like, sentimentally, but yes physically people thought that he was my brother because I was I am blond-haired and he is blond-haired too, so... We didn’t look like couples) (AC-048; NE: L. 63) RL: (dox pi: (fci: [(fi: (fj: físic- (fj))Means (fi)) (ei)U] (fci)) (pi))

(34)	Inf.: eu e o I. a gente num tinha muitas assim... éh coisas iguais assim sentimentalmente mas sim fisicamente as pessoas pensavam que ele era meu irmão porque eu era eu sô(u) loira ele também é loiro então... nem parecia casais de namorados (I and I., we didn’t have many, like... uh things in common, like, sentimentally, but yes physically people thought that he was my brother because I was I am blond-haired and he is blond-haired too, so... We didn’t look like couples) (AC-048; NE: L. 63)
	RL:	(dox pi: (fci: [(fi: (fj: físic- (fj))Means (fi)) (ei)U] (fci)) (pi))

In (34),¹⁷ sentimentalmente (“sentimentally”), the modifier of the State-of-Affairs a gente ter muitas coisas iguais (“we have many things in common”), is replaced by fisicamente (“physically”), which, in turn, is related to (e_i)_U, the semantic entity with an absent head co-indexed with the State-of-Affairs modified in the first member, predicating it in a relation established over the scope of (f^c_i), as represented in (34).

In these cases, such as (32) and (34), unlike those cases in which a predication argument is replaced, the second member of the coordination, expressed by an Adpositional Phrase or with a case marker, is formulated at the Representational Level by the Relational predication frame.

Thus, the non-instantiated representation of the non-clause member of the substitutive coordination on the Representational Level is (35), depending on the kind of predication frame instantiating it.

(35) ({neg} p1: (fc1: [(α1: (f1: ♦ (f1)) (α1)) (α2)] (fc1)) (p1)) Identificational ({neg} p1: (fc1: [(α1: (f1: ♦ (f1)) (α1)) (α2)U] (fc1)) (p1)) Classificational ({neg} p1: (fc1: [(f1: (α1: (f2: ♦ (f2)) (α1))φ (f1)) (α2)U] (fc1)) (p1)) Relational

(35)	({neg} p1: (fc1: [(α1: (f1: ♦ (f1)) (α1)) (α2)] (fc1)) (p1))	Identificational
	({neg} p1: (fc1: [(α1: (f1: ♦ (f1)) (α1)) (α2)U] (fc1)) (p1))	Classificational
	({neg} p1: (fc1: [(f1: (α1: (f2: ♦ (f2)) (α1))φ (f1)) (α2)U] (fc1)) (p1))	Relational

Alignment with mismatches between Formulation levels

FDG is a theoretical model which does not admit deletion of elements in linguistic expression. In a syntax-centered approach, evidently, that would be required to explain the phenomenon analyzed here. However, this phenomenon can be explained without resorting to deletion rules, as we will show in the sequence.

FDG, as already pointed out, is organized in four levels. The explanation for the non-expression of syntactic units originates from the mismatch between the two Formulation levels: the Interpersonal Level and the Representational Level.

In the occurrence in (36), it is clear that the Speaker intends to oppose por razões portanto eleitorais que nunca estiveram no meu espírito (“for electoral reasons which have never been in my mind”) with por leitura que faço da constituição (“for my understanding of the constitution”), adding the second phrase as new information meant to replace the first one; therefore, the activated content frame by grammar is the Thetic frame, since the Speaker intends to fill a gap which s/he supposes to exist in the Addressee’s mental representation. On the Representational Level, in turn, por leitura que faço da constituição (“for my understanding of the constitution”), which conveys the semantic function of Cause (_Cause), is linked to the State-of-Affairs eu ter a prudência de não cair nesse aspecto (“I had the prudence not to be misled into this aspect”), present in the co-text and anaphorically resumed.

(36) -> o presidente da república não tem no nosso sistema funções executivas. quem tem as funções executivas é o governo. na medida em que o presidente da república queira avançar mais do que deve, cai numa área de conflitualidade. e então é pior a emenda do que o soneto, [...] e eu tive a prudência de não cair nesse aspecto. [...] não por razões portanto eleitorais que nunca estiveram no meu espírito mas por leitura que faço da constituição. (The president of the Republic does not have executive roles in our system; the government is the one which has executive roles. To the extent to which the president of the Republic wants to move further than he is supposed to, he falls into a conflict area. And then the amendment is worse than the sonnet, [...] and I had the prudence not to be misled into this aspect. […] Not for electoral reasons which have never been in my mind, but for my understanding of the constitution.) (PT90:Poderes ChefeEstado)

(36)

-> o presidente da república não tem no nosso sistema funções executivas. quem tem as funções executivas é o governo. na medida em que o presidente da república queira avançar mais do que deve, cai numa área de conflitualidade. e então é pior a emenda do que o soneto, [...] e eu tive a prudência de não cair nesse aspecto. [...] não por razões portanto eleitorais que nunca estiveram no meu espírito mas por leitura que faço da constituição. (The president of the Republic does not have executive roles in our system; the government is the one which has executive roles. To the extent to which the president of the Republic wants to move further than he is supposed to, he falls into a conflict area. And then the amendment is worse than the sonnet, [...] and I had the prudence not to be misled into this aspect. […] Not for electoral reasons which have never been in my mind, but for my understanding of the constitution.) (PT90:Poderes ChefeEstado)

Necessarily, on the second member of the substitutive adversative coordination – and optionally on the first –, there are mismatches (HENGEVELD; MACKENZIE, 2021) between the Intepersonal Level and the Representational Level, in a relation of one to more than one, respectively; in other words, grammar selects a predication frame which is instantiated by two semantic entities, but only one of them is evoked at the Interpersonal Level, since grammar triggers the Thetic content frame composed of a single Subact. As an example, the second member of the occurrence in (36) is represented in (37) on both Formulation levels, in order to clearly show the alignment and the mismatch between levels.

(37) (AI: [ ... (CI: (TI: (RJ: –leitura que faço da constituição– (RJ)) (TI)) (CI))FOC-CONTR] (AI)) (pi: (fci: [ (fi: (ei: –leitura que faço da constituição– (ei))Cause (fi)) (ej)U] (fci)) (pi))

(37)	(AI: [	...	(CI:	(TI:	(RJ:	–leitura que faço da constituição–	(RJ))	(TI))		(CI))FOC-CONTR]	(AI))
	(pi:		(fci: [	(fi:	(ei:	–leitura que faço da constituição–	(ei))Cause	(fi))	(ej)U]	(fci))	(pi))

Therefore, while the Thetic content frame leads the non-clause member of the substitutive adversative coordination to be a Phrase or a Word, the predication frame, whether Identificational, Classificational or Relational, in turn, grants this member a sentential or propositional character, which is the reason why many grammaticians are led to consider the existence of deletion, which is not confirmed.

Final remarks

FDG understand that morphosyntax plays an auxiliary role concerning the transmission of meaning. In the coordination type studied here, for the second coordinated member, grammar predicts the codification exclusively of Phrases or Words, considering that they seek to convey only one piece of information in a focalized manner. At the same time, this information consists in a two-place predication. One of the places is instantiated by a semantic entity with an absent head anaphorically resumed from the Contextual Component. Thus, the predication is appropriately related to the registry established and stored in this component. Only a theoretical model which takes into account the situated nature of the verbal interaction, expressed in FDG by the components which interact with the grammar of a natural language, is able to satisfactorily describe the type of coordination analyzed here.

Chart 2 resumes the pragmatic, semantic, morphosyntactic and phonological properties of the non-clause member of the coordination type under analysis, in addition to the correlations between the levels of grammar, α being from any semantic category. The keys involving neg and _CONTR indicate, respectively, the possibility of the negation operator occurring in the first member, and the pragmatic function Contrast occurring in the second coordinated member.

Chart 2
– Alignment between the Formulation and Codification levels of the non-clause member of the substitutive adversative coordination

IL:	(A1: [ ...	({neg} C1:	(SA1)		(C1))FOC-{CONTR}]	(A1))	Thetic
RL:	({neg} p1:	(fc1: [	(α1: (f1: ♦ (f1)) (α1))	(α2)	] (fc1))	(p1))	Identificat.
	({neg} p1:	(fc1: [	(α1: (f1: ♦ (f1)) (α1))	(α2)U	] (fc1))	(p1))	Classificat.
	({neg} p1:	(fc1: [	(f1: (α1: (f2: ♦ (f2)) (α1))φ (f1))	(α2)U	] (fc1))	(p1))	Relat.
ML:		{(Gw1: não (Gw1))} (Xw1) {(Gw1: não (Gw1))}					Word
		{(Gw1: não (Gw1))} (Xp1) {(Gw1: não (Gw1))}					Phrase
PL:	(f IPi:	(PPi)				(IPi))	Intonat. Phr.

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

Through this study, we hope to provide a contribution to a functionalist-based description of the substitutive adversative coordination. Other aspects, such as morphosyntactic and phonological patterns of coordination as a whole, are addressed by Pezatti and Galvão Passetti (2021) and Galvão Passetti (2021). Further specificities, such as the presence of counter-presuppositional Contrast in one or both members – for instance, não (só) X mas (também) Y (“not [only] X, but [also] Y”) –, among other aspects, which could not be analyzed here, remain for further investigation.

Chart 1
– FDG General layout of FDG

Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2008

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for the funding (GD/CNPq Proc. Nr. 140383/2021-2 and PQ/CNPq Proc. Nr. 301257/2017-5, scholarships granted to the first and the second author, respectively) and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – Brazil (CAPES) – Funding Code 001 (scholarship received by the first author during the Academic Master’s degree), which enabled the performance of this research and development of this paper.

REFERÊNCIAS

• ANSCOMBRE, J. C.; DUCROT, O. Deux Mais en français. Língua, Amsterdam, v. 43, p. 23-40, 1977.
• CENTRO DE LINGUÍSTICA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA [CLUL]. Português Falado: Variedades Geográficas e Sociais. Programme LINGUA/SOCRATES, Lisboa: CLUL, 1995-1997. Disponível em: https://www.clul.ulisboa.pt/recurso/portugues-falado-variedades-geograficas-e-sociais Acesso em: 9 abr. 2023.
  » https://www.clul.ulisboa.pt/recurso/portugues-falado-variedades-geograficas-e-sociais
• DIK, S. C. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Edição de Kess Hengeveld. 2. ed. rev. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997a. Part I: The structure of the clause.
• DIK, S. C. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Edição de Kess Hengeveld. 2. ed. rev. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997b. Part II: Complex and derived constructions.
• GALVÃO PASSETTI, G. H. Coordenação de constituintes não oracionais por meio de “mas” nas variedades portuguesas sob a perspectiva da Gramática Discursivo-Funcional: Concessão e Contraste. 2021. 244f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Estudos Linguísticos) – Instituto de Biociências, Letras e Ciências Exatas, Universidade Estadual Paulista, São José do Rio Preto, 2021.
• GUIMARÃES, E. Texto e argumentação: um estudo de conjunções em português. Campinas: Pontes, 1987.
• HARRIS, Z. Notes du Cours de Syntaxe. Trad. Maurice Gross. Paris: Le Seuil, 1976.
• HARRIS, Z. Mathematical Structures of Language. New York: Wiley, 1968.
• HENGEVELD, K.; MACKENZIE, J. L. Interfaces, mismatches, and the architecture of Functional Discourse Grammar. In: CONTRERAS-GARCÍA, L.; GARCÍA VELASCO, D. (ed.). Interfaces in Functional Discourse Grammar: Theory and Applications. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2021. p. 15-58. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711592-002 Acesso em: 3 abr. 2023.
  » https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711592-002
• HENGEVELD, K.; MACKENZIE, J. L. Negation in functional discourse grammar. In: KEIZER, E.; OLBERTZ, H. (org.). Recent Developments in Functional Discourse Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2018. p. 18-45. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.205.02hen Acesso em: 3 abr. 2023.
  » https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.205.02hen
• HENGEVELD, K.; MACKENZIE, J. L. Grammar and context in Functional Discourse Grammar, Pragmatics, Amsterdam, v. 24, n. 2, p. 203-227, 2014. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.2.02hen Acesso em: 3 abr. 2023.
  » https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.2.02hen
• HENGEVELD, K.; MACKENZIE, J. L Functional Discourse Grammar. In: HEINE, B.; NARROG, H. (eds.). The oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. p. 367-400. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0015 Acesso em: 3 abr. 2023.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0015
• HENGEVELD, K.; MACKENZIE, J. L. Functional Discourse Grammar: a typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001 Acesso em: 3 abr. 2023.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001
• JAKOBSON, R. Lingüística e Comunicação. Trad. Izidoro Blikstein e José Paulo Paes. São Paulo: Cultrix, 1975.
• LYONS, J. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. 2 v. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500007466 Acesso em: 3 abr. 2023.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500007466
• MACKENZIE, J. L. Testing for constituents: a response from Functional Discourse Grammar. Language Under Discussion, Ithaca, v. 5, n. 1, p. 45-51, abr. 2018. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.31885/lud.5.1.225 Acesso em: 3 abr. 2023.
  » https://doi.org/10.31885/lud.5.1.225
• MATOS, G.; PRADA, E. Construções contrastivas de focalização: adversativas vs. concessivas. In: ENCONTRO NACIONAL DA ASSOCIAÇÃO PORTUGUESA DE LINGUÍSTICA, 20., 2004, Lisboa. Anais [...]. Lisboa: APL, 2005. p. 701-713.
• McCAWLEY, J. D. Contrastive negation and metalinguistic negation. In: THE TWENTY-SEVENTH REGIONAL MEETING OF THE CHICAGO LINGUISTIC SOCIETY, 2., 1991, Chicago. Anais […] Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1991. p. 189-206.
• MÓIA, T. Coordenações e aposições adversativas não frásicas em estruturas nominais. In: ENCONTRO NACIONAL DA ASSOCIAÇÃO PORTUGUESA DE LINGUÍSTICA, 23., 2007, Évora. Anais [...]. Lisboa: APL, 2008. p. 345-358.
• MUNN, A. B. Topics on the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. 1993. 410 p.. Tese (Doutorado em Filosofia) – Faculty of the Graduate School, University of Maryland, Maryland, 1993.
• PEZATTI, E. G. A ordem das palavras no português. São Paulo: Parábola Editorial, 2014.
• PEZATTI, E. G. A ordem das palavras em português, aspectos tipológicos e funcionais. 1992. 226f. Tese (Doutorado em Linguística e Língua Portuguesa) – Faculdade de Ciências e Letras, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Araraquara, 1992.
• PEZATTI, E. G.; GALVÃO PASSETTI, G. H. Coordenação não oracional adversativa. In: PEZATTI, E. G.; CAMACHO, R. G; DALL’AGLIO-HATTNHER, M. M. (org.). Construções coordenadas nas variedades portuguesas: uma abordagem discursivo-funcional. Campinas, SP: Mercado de Letras, 2021. p. 259-302.
• PEZATTI, E. G.; PAULA, D. C. F.; GALVÃO PASSETTI, G. H. Contraposição não oracional com mas: substituição e acréscimo. Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos, Campinas, SP, v. 61, p. 1-18, 13 fev. 2019. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.20396/cel.v61i1.8653710 Acesso em: 3 abr. 2023.
  » https://doi.org/10.20396/cel.v61i1.8653710
• SCHWENTER, S. A. The pragmatics of negation in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua, Amsterdam, v. 115, n. 10, p. 1427-1456, 2005. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.06.006 Acesso em: 3 abr. 2023.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.06.006
• SOUSA, S. Contributos para o estudo das construções refutativo-rectificativas em PE. In: ENCONTRO NACIONAL DA ASSOCIAÇÃO PORTUGUESA DE LINGUÍSTICA, 23., 2007, Évora. Anais [...] Lisboa: APL, 2008. p. 435-449.
• TOOSARVANDANI, M. Corrective but coordinates clauses not always but sometimes. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, Dordrecht, v. 31, n. 3, p. 827-863, 2013. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9198-4 Acesso em: 3 abr. 2023.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9198-4
• VOGT, C.; DUCROT, O. De Magis a Mas: uma hipótese semântica. In: VOGT, C.; DUCROT, O. Linguagem, pragmática e ideologia. São Paulo: Hucitec, 1980. p. 103-128.

• 1
  According to Anscombre e Ducrot (1977), _PA refers to pero and aber and _SN, to sino and sondern; pero and sino are Spanish words and aber and sondern, German words.
• 2
  Words that designate theoretical concepts of FGD are spelled with the first letter capitalized.
• 3
  For a detailed description of the difference, both in formulation and codification, between a concessive mas and a contrastive mas, see Galvão Passetti (2021).
• 4
  Deletion is a type of paraphrastic transformation which generates an ellipse. It consists in a reorganization in terms of form and intervenes on a previous structuring at the moment the syntactic structuring is established, without changing the meaning. For more detailed information, see Harris (1968, 1976).
• 5
  Available at: https://alip.ibilce.unesp.br/bancos-de-dados/banco-de-dados-iboruna. Access on: 3 Apr. 2023.
• 6
  For simplicity, in this and in the next non-instantiated representations, the possibility of occurrence of more than one unit per layer is not represented, nor are the slots for operators, modifiers and functions.
• 7
  In this and the following representations, only what is in bold in the occurrences under analysis is represented.
• 8
  We understand that, in these cases, sim encodes the doxastic subjective epistemic modality operator. The Grammatical Word sim, however, also marks the positive polarity operator (pos) – the English yes –, often used in response to polar question. Either way, sim specifies Propositional Content.
• 9
  The formulation of Episode and State-of-Affairs layers between the Propositional Content and the Configurational Property is not expected, since the analyzed coordinated members do not feature any modifier or operator which modifies or specifies these layers, such as those indicating absolute and relative tense, for instance.
• 10
  The Contextual Component has a fifth Stratum, fed by the Phonetic Level. However, this level is not part of the Grammatical Component, but rather of the Output Component.
• 11
  In this and in the following representations of the Contextual Component, only the Stratum corresponding to the Representational Level is specified.
• 12
  In the original: “que ele pressupõe fazer parte da informação pragmática disponível ao Ouvinte, por outra, estabelecendo, nos termos de Hengeveld e Mackenzie (2018), uma ‘discordância’ (disagreement) com que o Ouvinte possa acreditar.” (GALVÃO PASSETTI, 2021, p. 179).
• 13
  In the original: “já foi evocada no discurso e armazenada no Componente Contextual, estabelecendo, nos termos de Hengeveld e Mackenzie (2018), uma ‘recusa’ (denial) do que foi dito anteriormente, i.e., uma negação de um Conteúdo Comunicado.” (GALVÃO PASSETTI, 2021, p. 181).
• 14
  The relation between the discourse status of the information to be replaced and the position of não in the substitutive adversative coordination reinforces Schwenter’s thesis (2005), for whom, in the context of verb negations in Brazilian Portuguese, NEG3, i.e., post-verbal negation, such as in quero não, in contrast with NEG1 and NEG2, exemplified by não quero and não quero não, respectively, is “employed specifically to deny a discourse-old proposition that has been explicitly activated in the discourse context.” (SCHWENTER, 2005, p. 1452).
• 15
  In this occurrence, assim is not an adverb, but a filled pause.
• 16
  The phrases diz que (“they say that”), quase (“almost”) and pelo menos (“at least”) are operators at the Interpersonal Level: reportative, irony and mitigation, respectively.
• 17
  See Footnote 14, p. 24.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  15 May 2023
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  10 Sept 2021
• Accepted
  13 Oct 2021