SEMANTIC PROSODIES IN ENGLISH AND PORTUGUESE: A CONTRASTIVE STUDY

Abstract

c1c~ornp<tnnt7 o lrno ~~<tlrtl~ro. /r1tri.riiii/c~ri(1~1I1. cortto I~II rlric~i?tiltk~ ct/es/r~gira(k~ cJii i.iwios cs/iri/io.c hos[rdo.c. rii c~~i.l~ir.\). E~i~~i~ii/r~ttrr u.si~ario.s ~~stttdios .~Oh~~~~~,i~.7Od ict~I~11i~~tt/ic ~i1/~c1~~1 e/ incq/~s, /iooso/~tiitc~ri/c zrti er/ltdiorotts/r(itii~o ir?g/~;\1x~.tltguC;.7. Ilri goicr~rl, /OS rc~sttltricl(~.c .een~tl[iti rrirpor/nrt/~~.e siiirili/ir<le~ j. ~hi.~~rgerici~t.c eiiire oiitl~crs lerigiior. ct7c~oii/r~irtd(j.c1~ ir7c~orisis/eti~~t<i., eii 1r/jiltr7o.c riicc~iot7ctrios uc-tirctles. EF/C ex/trr/io se h(t hirs(rdo cvi 110.7 ~.orptt< li17~qiii,c./tcoc: lrit ~-or/)ti.s (id lior/irglrc;. 1-11ii tit~i. 11. 140 riiilloiicc. 11r ~~trlfthrits (tirio 'fc /lo tirr<ic exhoii.s/ri.o.r eri e.r/~r