Os verbos "parar" e "deixar" com complementos de natureza verbal e de natureza nominal

This study is included in the syntax and semantic interface, using the Chomskyan assumptions of generative theory, in the Principles and Parameters model (P&P). In this work, sentences with verbs parar e deixar(in a free translation to stop and to leave) were analyzed with infinitive prepositioned complements (InfP) and nominal complements in Brazilian Portuguese (BP). In this research, we aimed to infer the notions that these verbs express, linking them to the category of their complement, checking if the verbs to stop and to leave contribute differently to the meaning of a sentence, or if both of them always express a sense of interruptive aspect in different syntactic contexts. For this analysis, it was adopted the division of classes of lexical aspect systematized by Vendler (1967): state, activity, accomplishment and achievement and the refinements made by Bertinetto (1986) and Basso and Ilari (2004), regarding the division of the class of the stative verbs, and by Smith (1997), that includes the class of semelfactive verbs in the aspectual verbs class. Our main assumptions were: (i) to stop and to leave express an interruptive aspect when appearing with prepositioned infinitive complements [InfP]; (ii) to stop indicates an interruptive aspect in all of its uses, even when the DP is in the position of its complement; (iii) the restriction of the aspectual verbs to stop and to leave regarding the native DPs complements (not derived from verbs) is related to the feature [+process], as required by all aspectual verbs (ROCHETTE, 1999); (iv) to leave , when forming sequence with predicates that present the feature [+telic], presents ambiguity and can express interruption of a single event, or non-realization of the event; (v) to stop and to leave offer restrictions to typically stative predicates (BERTINETTO, 1991; BASSO; ILARI, 2004). Our analysis showed that the verb to stop does not indicate interruption of the event in all of its uses, regarding to the InfP complement. However, the verb to leave presents ambiguity between interruption and negation of the event, which seems to be related to the feature [+telic]. We also noted that the feature [+process] is required by the aspectual verbs to stop and to leave and a determining factor for selecting a complement, either of verbal or nominal nature. Finally, we ascertained that the verbs to stop and to leave offer restrictions to the typically stative predicates, which can be related to the feature [+change] in these types of predicates. Considering the theoretical representation of these verbs, our analysis indicates implications in the representation of the verbs to stop and to leave when these are followed by prepositioned infinitive complements. On the other hand, the syntactic representation of the verb to stop as a lexical unaccusative shows that the verb selects an IA that can be moved to the positions of subject of the sentence. The verb to leave as a lexical verb can select two or three arguments marking them thematically and seems not to function as lexical unaccusative.Este estudo se insere na interface sintaxe e sem?ntica, utilizando os pressupostos da teoria gerativa chomskyana, no modelo Princ?pios e Par?metros (P&P). Neste trabalho, foram analisadas constru??es com os verbos deixar e parar com complemento infinitivo preposicionados (InfP) e complementos nominais no portugu?s brasileiro (PB). Nesta pesquisa, objetivamos depreender as no??es que esses verbos expressam, associando-as ? categoria do seu complemento, averiguando se os verbos deixar e parar contribuem de forma diferente para o significado de uma senten?a, ou se ambos expressam sempre uma no??o de aspecto interruptivo nos diferentes contextos sint?ticos. Para esta an?lise, foi adotada a divis?o de classes de aspecto lexical sistematizada por Vendler (1967): estado, atividade, accomplishment e achievement e os refinamentos feitos por Bertinetto (1986) e Basso e Ilari (2004), no que se refere ? divis?o da classe dos estativos, e por Smith (1997), que inclui os semelfactivos na classe dos aspectuais. Nossas principais hip?teses foram: (i) parar e deixar expressam aspecto interruptivo quando figuram com complementos infinitivos preposicionados [InfP]; (ii) parar indica aspecto interruptivo em todos os seus empregos, mesmo com DP na posi??o de seu complemento; (iii) a restri??o dos aspectuais parar e deixar a complementos DPs natos (n?o derivados de verbos) est? relacionada ao tra?o [+processo], requerido por todo verbo aspectual (ROCHETTE, 1999); (iv) deixar, quando forma sequ?ncia com predicados que apresentam o tra?o [+t?lico], apresenta ambiguidade, podendo expressar interrup??o de um ?nico evento, ou a n?o-realiza??o do evento; (v) parar e deixar oferecem restri??es a predicados tipicamente estativos (BERTINETTO, 1991; BASSO; ILARI, 2004). Nossas an?lises apontaram que o verbo parar n?o indica interrup??o de evento em todos os seus empregos, no que diz respeito ao complemento InfP, j? o verbo deixar apresenta ambiguidade entre interrup??o e nega??o do evento, o que parece estar relacionado ao tra?o [+t?lico]. Constatamos, tamb?m, que o tra?o [+processo] ? requerido pelos aspectuais parar e deixar e fator determinante para a sele??o de um complemento, seja de natureza verbal ou nominal. Por fim, averiguamos que os verbos parar e deixar oferecem restri??es aos predicados tipicamente estativos, o que pode estar relacionado ao tra?o [+mudan?a] ausente nesses tipos de predicados. No que se refere ? representa??o te?rica desses verbos, nossas an?lises indicam implica??es de representa??o arb?rea dos verbos parar e deixar com complementos infinitivos preposicionados. J? a representa??o sint?tica do verbo parar como inacusativo lexical mostra que o verbo seleciona AI que pode ser al?ado para a posi??o de sujeito da senten?a. O verbo deixar como verbo lexical, pode selecionar dois ou tr?s argumentos marcando-os tematicamente e parece n?o funcionar como inacusativo lexical