Florianópolis - sC - Brazil | June 27-29, 2018 70 EISSI Syntax, Semantics, Interfaces & Cognition 3 rd PREPOSITIONS “COM” AND “MAIS”: THEIR THEMATIC ROLES Rerisson Cavalcante de Araujo Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA) rerissonaraujo@yahoo.com.br Débora Trindade Gomes Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA) deboractrindade@gmail.com Cristina Figueiredo Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA) macrisfig@uol.com.br The article aims to offers an analysis for the thematic roles or semantic contribution provided by the preposition com (‘with’) in several contexts in Portuguese. The analysis can be extended for prepositional uses of the adverb mais as well as other prepositions with equivalent meaning in different languages. A close examination of sentences with DPs introduced by com suggests that they conveys several thematic roles, as diverse as Agent, Instrument, Causer, Objective, Theme, Patient, Beneficiary, Possession, Mental State, Company and Time (cf. (1)-(11)). This situation creates two puzzles: (i) what is the semantic contribution made by com? How can it express so many different and even opposite notions? (ii) How to accommodate this with theories about Theta Criterion (in which a theta-role must be unequivocally assigned to one DP) and Theta Hierarchy (in which each theta-role must be associated with a unique syntactic position)? In some of the previous sentences, the same theta-role is assigned to different DPs in distinct syntactic positions (cf. (12)-(13)). The situation is particularly intriguing with reciprocal/symmetric verbs, where com-phrases apparently do not introduce adjuncts (not required by the verb), but arguments. In this paper, we discuss two proposals on thematic role attribution and thematic hierarchy: (i) Dowty (1991)’s proposal based on proto-roles (proto-agent and proto- patient); (ii) Cançado (2003, 2005)’s proposal based on decomposition of semantic properties. We also discuss Godoi (2008, 2009)’s and Wachowicz and Frutos (2009)’s analyses for the semantic and syntactic behavior of symmetric verbs. We show that neither Dowty (1991) nor Cançado (2003, 2005) can account for the semantic behavior of com-phrases, making wrong predictions about symmetric predicates. Dowty (1991)’s theory wrongly predicts that sentences in (14) should be agrammatical and those in (15) grammatical. Cançado (2003, 2005)’s idea that all “all argument that violates thematic hierarchy must appear in the sentence as an adjunct, marked by a preposition” may accommodate (14)-(15), but it still does not offer a clear explanation for: (i) why com is able to assign so many thematic roles; (ii) why it can assign either agent or patient/theme even with the same verbal predicate. Based on those problems, we try to formulate a simpler analysis for the semantic contribution of com/mais. Our working hypothesis (based on GOMES 2017) is that prepositions like com do not express/assign different roles to its complements; they always convey the same semantic contribution, which can be characterized as the feature <participant of the event> (which could be integrated in Dowty’s proposal as a Proto-Participant role, neutral between Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient). Different interpretations manifested by com-DPs result from the interaction of (i) this <participant > feature; (ii) the inherent semantic features of PP’s complements; (iii) and the features of the predicate event to which the PP is connected, aided by conversational implicatures (GRICE, 1975). In sum, the polysemy associated with com is not due to semantics, but to pragmatic principles/conversational maxims. For instance, if an animate DP as Maria is introduced by com as a participant in an event with an verb compatible only with agent (cf. sair in (1a)), an implicature may produce the reading that Mary’s participation in the event is similar to the agent. If an animate DP as Pedro is introduced in an event (as assaltar) that requires an agent and a patient and both of them are already expressed, as in (1b), the com-DP may be interpreted either as a co-agent or a co-patient: when the patient in non-animated as in (1b), the animate com-DP is interpreted as a co-agent; when both arguments are animate, both interpretations are available for the com-DP (cf. (16)), although agent reading is favored for some speakers. If a non-animate DP as o carro is introduced by com in an event that requires only human participants, an implicature will produce non-agent interpretations: instrument, if a human participant/agent is already expressed (cf. (2)); (ii) causer, if there is no human agent participant expressed in the sentence; and so on. The important point here is that those readings can be cancel, which is incompatible with the notion of thematic/semantic role, but can be captured by Grice’s notion of implicature. In (17), Maria can be seen as an agent or as a patient depending on whether the previous linguistic context either describes Maria as a somnambulist who engage in intercourse with her husband João or describes João as a criminal who invaded Maria’s house. Similar remarks can be made about (18) with conversar. One should note that a patient thematic role is simply not assumed for verbs like transar or conversar. (1) a. João saiu com Maria. b. João assaltou o banco com Pedro. (Agent) (2) João abriu a porta com o pé-de-cabra. b.Pedro saiu com o carro. (Instrument) (3) A porta se abriu com o vento. b. A manteiga derreteu com o calor. (Causer) (4) João concorda com Pedro. (Objectivo/Object of reference) (5) As mesas foram levadas com as cadeiras para a outra sala. (Theme)