O esquema morfológico latino [[Xi]-arium]N e os seus desdobramentos em línguas românicas

uma análise cognitivo-funcional orientada pela Morfologia Construcional e pelos Mapas Semânticos

Abstract

This article analyzes the morphological construction [[X]-arium]N, considering its origin in Latin and its development in seven Romance languages: Romanian, Italian, French, Catalan, Spanish, Galician, and Portuguese. It aims to assess whether there are aspects of the construction's semantic behavior that can be considered relevant to supporting any of the proposed classifications of Romance languages ​​as Western and Eastern, as done by Maurer Jr. (1951) and Wartburg (1952 [1950]), and the framing of Catalan as a Gallo-Romance or Ibero-Romance language, as discussed by Meyer-Lübke (1925), Menéndez Pidal (1950 [1926]), and Meier (1973 [1948]). The data for the analysis are derived from monolingual, bilingual, or trilingual dictionaries of these languages. The collected words were inspected for their morphology and etymology in order to discard words that could not be analyzed as related to the selected morphological schemes. Two cognitive-functional models were chosen as theoretical frameworks for the analysis of the collected data: Construction Morphology (Booij, 2010, 2014, 2017, 2019; Gonçalves, 2016, 2021; Simões Neto, 2017a; 2017b, 2018; 2021; Soledade, 2013, 2018, 2019; Lopes, 2021) and Semantic Maps (Haspelmath, 2003; Georgakopoulos; Polis, 2018; Sánchez, 2020). Through Construction Morphology, the phenomenon of semantic fragmentation in morphological construction, which is related to its polysemous behavior, was analyzed, and a hierarchical structure with schemas and subschemes was proposed, as is typical in analyses guided by this model. Once the schemas and subschemes in Constructional Morphology were identified, the proposed semantic categories were interpreted using Semantic Maps, a typological analysis model that has efficiently served comparative studies in general, even when it does not analyze typologically diverse languages ​​and does not aim to identify linguistic universals, nor propose classifications based on typology, as is the case in this work. The data analysis revealed three important findings: (a) there is a morphosemantic network common to Latin and all the languages ​​analyzed, and it includes meanings such as professional agent, habitual agent, adjective/qualifier, locative, container object, and collective; (b) the meanings of plant agent, object of personal use and excess are unproductive or less productive in languages ​​such as Italian and Romanian; (c) the meanings of anomaly, gentilic and attitudinal are more productive in Ibero-Romance languages. These findings suggest that, based on the phenomenon in question, Italian would be closer to Romanian, being an Eastern Romance language, as proposed by Wartburg (1952 [1950]), and Catalan would fit as an Ibero-Romance language, as argued by Menéndez Pidal (1950 [1926]) and Meier (1973 [1948]).