Parameters in the grammar of Basque: A GB approach to Basque syntax 9783110876741, 9783110131055

Citation preview

Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

Studies in Generative Grammar The goal of this series is to publish those texts that are representative of recent advances in the theory of formal grammar. Too many studies do not reach the public they deserve because of the depth and detail that make them unsuitable for publication in article form. We hope that the present series will make these studies available to a wider audience than has hitherto been possible. Editors:

Jan Koster Henk van Riemsdijk

Other books, still available in this series: 1. W i m Zonneveld A Formal Theory of Exceptions Generative Phonology

in

24. Julia Horvath FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar the Syntax of Hungarian

7. Anneke Neijt Gapping

and

Binding

10. Robert May and Jan Koster (eds.) Levels of Syntactic Representation 13. Hagit Borer Parametric Syntax 14. Denis Bouchard On the Content of Empty

Categories

15. Hilda Koopman The Syntax of Verbs 16. Richard S. Kayne Connectedness and Binary

in

and

25. Pieter Muysken and Henk van Riemsdijk Features and Projections 26. Joseph A o u n Generalized Binding. The Syntax and Logical Form of Wh-interrogatives 27. Ivonne Bordelois, Heles Contreras and Karen Zagona Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax 28. Marina Nespor and Irene Vogel Prosodic Phonology

Branching

17. Jerzy Rubach Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: structure of Polish 18. Sergio Scalise Generative Morphology 19. Joseph E. Emonds A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories 20. Gabriella Hermon Syntactic Modularity

Grammar

23. S.J. K e y s e r / W . O'Neil Rule Generalization and Optionality Language Change

3. Geert Booij Dutch Morphology

9. Noam Chomsky Lectures on Government

21. Jindfich Toman Studies on German

the

29. Takashi Imai and M a m o r u Saito (eds.) Issues in Japanese Linguistics 30. J a n Koster Domains and

Dynasties.

31 Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and the Syntax 32. Lars Hellan Anaphora in Norwegian Theory of Grammar

and the

Jon Ortiz de Urbina

Parameters in the Grammar of Basque A GB Approach to Basque Syntax

1989 FORIS PUBLICATIONS Dordrecht - Holland/Providence Rl - U.S.A.

Published

by•

Foris Publications Holland P.O. Box 509 3300 AM Dordrecht, The Netherlands Distributor

for the U.S.A. and

Canada:

Foris Publications USA, Inc. P.O. Box 5904 Providence Rl 02903 U.S.A. Sole distributor

for

Japan:

Sanseido Book Store, Ltd. 1-1, Kanda-jimbocho-cho Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 101, Japan

CIP-DATA

Ortiz de Urbina, Jon

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque / Jon Ortiz de Urbina. - Dordrecht [etc.]: Foris. - (Studies in Generative Grammar, ISSN 0167-4331 ; 32) ISBN 90 6765 338 1 bound ISBN 90 6765 337 3 paper SISO bask 837.1 UDC 809.169-5 Subject heading: Basque language ; grammar

ISBN 90 6765 338 1 (Bound) ISBN 90 6765 337 3 (Paper) © 1989 Foris Publications - Dordrecht No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner. Printed in the Netherlands by ICG Printing, Dordrecht.

Contents

Aknowledgements List of Abbreviations Introduction Chapter 1. Ergativity in Basque 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Morphological ergativity 1.1.1 Case Marking 1.1.2 Person Agreement Marking 1.2 Syntactic Ergativity: TS/IS grouping constructions in Basque . . 1.2.1 Control Structures 1.2.2 Genitive objects 1.2.3 Anaphors 1.2.4 Coordinate Structures 1.2.5 Reanalysis 1.3 The Ergative Hypothesis 1.3.1 Control Structures 1.3.2 Reflexive-passive homophony 1.4 Unaccusativity in Basque 1.4.1 Semantic unaccusativity in Basque 1.4.2 Syntactic unaccusativity 1.4.2.1 Unaccusative arguments as objects: the partitive case 1.4.2.2 Unaccusativity and ergativity: Basque as an extended ergative language 1.4.3 Case marking Notes

ix xi xiii 1 1 3 6 7 15 15 18 20 22 23 34 36 36 39 40 48 48 49 51 61

Chapter 2. Word order and configurations

67

2.0 Introduction 2.1 Word order constraints: Basque phrase structure 2.1.1 N-complements

67 68 68

vi 2.1.2 Postpositions 2.1.3 Adjectives 2.1.4 V projections 2.2 Configurationality 2.2.1 Free word order and configurations 2.2.2 SS and LF configurationality 2.2.2.1 Crossover: arguments and non-arguments 2.2.2.2 Referential dependencies and strong crossover.... 2.2.2.3 Partitives 2.2.2.4 Reciprocal anaphors 2.2.2.5 Bound pronouns 2.2.2.6 Counterarguments 2.2.2.6.1 Constituency tests 2.2.2.6.2 Intensive (reflexive) possessives 2.3 An analysis of Basque syntactic structure Notes

74 76 78 84 85 88 88 95 97 108 113 114 115 117 120 130

Chapter 3. AGR and case marking

143

3.0 Introduction 3.1 Object pros 3.1.1 Disjoint reference 3.1.2 Bound pronouns 3.1.3 The Specificity Constraint 3.1.4 Weak crossover revisited 3.2 The pro-drop parameter 3.2.1 Object agreement vs. object clitics 3.2.2 Identification of pro 3.3 Case assignment and Inflection 3.3.1 Case assignment in tenseless complements 3.3.1.1 Lexical and syntactic nominalizations 3.3.1.2 Lexical subjects in tenseless clauses 3.3.1.3 Control in nominalizations and participials 3.3.1.4 PROperties and properties of gaps in tenseless clauses 3.3.1.5 Tenseless indirect questions 3.3.2 Detransitivization in AGR Notes

143 144 146 147 153 155 157 157 159 165 166 167 173 179 182 187 188 200

Chapter 4. WH-movement and focus

205

4.0 Introduction 4.1 Complementizers and Subordinators

205 206

vii 4.2 Wh-movement and focus in Basque: a proposal 4.2.1 Interrogative and focal operators 4.2.2 Verb-second phenomena 4.2.3 Some arguments 4.2.3.1 Left position of CP 4.2.3.1.1 Argument/adjunct focalization 4.2.3.1.2 Verb focalization 4.2.3.2 COMP-like properties of FOCUS 4.3 Further issues in focalization 4.3.1 Aux-to-C movement 4.3.2 Focus and negation 4.3.2.1 Negative questions 4.3.2.2 Negative focalization 4.3.2.3 An alternative analysis of negative formation 4.3.3 Wh-scope and pied piping Notes

213 217 219 223 223 224 225 230 235 235 237 238 239 243 247 262

Conclusion

269

Appendix. Nominal paradigms

272

References

273

Acknowledgements

This book is a revised and extended version of my 1986 Ph.D. dissertation, and, consequently, I would like to express my appreciation and acknowledge the help of both people from 'over there' (U.S.A., where the thesis was written) and from 'over here' (the Basque country, where it was revised), without whose help this book would not have come to light. First, I would like to thank Peter Cole and Alice Davison for their comments on early versions of this study written at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Also, thanks to Mario Saltarelli, Andolin Eguzkitza and José Ignacio Hualde for the discussion sessions on Basque linguistics (and subsequent dinners) during my stay in Los Angeles. This side of the Atlantic, I would like to thank the small, but thriving, Basque linguist community. In a country where linguistic (let alone generative linguistic) research requires a generous dose of stamina, their willingness to meet and discuss traces and operators, as well as their friendship, has proven invaluable. Thanks, therefore, to Andolin Eguzkitza, Patxi Goenaga, Javi Ormazabal, Pello Salaburu, Jesus Uranga, Miriam Uribeetxebarria, Koldo Sainz and our present 'American connection', Itziar Laka and Juan Uriagereka. For the same reasons, I would also like to mention the local philologists, but none the less friends, Joseba Lakarra and Blanka Urgell. A not-so-local colleague, the French linguist George Rebuschi, fits perfectly well with the preceding groups. For their extra-linguistic help, I would also like to thank J.L. Guerrero, Pablo Arribe and, last but not least, Mikel Larrinaga. Rudolf de Rijk deserves special mention: he pioneered Basque generative studies in the '60's and has since contributed greatly to our understanding of Basque grammar, continuing a long tradition of Basque studies which includes names like Humboldt, prince Bonaparte, Schuchardt, Uhlembeck, Lafon, etc. Intellectually, my indebtedness to him can be seen throughout the following pages, and, personally, I am thankful to him for his numerous comments on an earlier draft of the book and for his in many ways crucial help with it. Early stages of this research were funded by a grant from the Department of Universities and Research of the Basque Government. Research on Quechua was funded by a field research grant from the Tinker Foundation

X

through the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies at the University of Illinois. I am grateful to all of them for their support, and to my Quechua teacher Luis Morato and his family for their hospitality and friendship. Apart from my own and my informants' data, some of the Basque examples used in the text come from a descriptive grammar of Basque to be published in the Lingua Descriptive Series, Croom Helm, under the direction of Mario Saltarelli, with the help of Miren Azkarate, David Farwell, Lourdes Oinederra and myself. Still other data, specially of less common structures, are adaptations of sentences coming from modern Basque literary texts. Their sources are too varied for me to be able to ackowledge them all here in detail.

List of Abbreviations

A E D adv asp aux comp dat dub fut gen hab inst int loc neg neut nom P part pl prf prs pot pst quot Q recip s sub

Absolutive Ergative Dative adverbializer aspect auxiliary complementizer/subordinator pre-dative marker dubitative future genitive habitual instrumental intensive locative negative neutral nominalizer plural partitive absolutive pluralizer perfective present potential past quotative interrogative reciprocal singular subjunctive

Throughout the text, there is great variation as to the amount of morphological detail indicated in the glosses of Basque examples. In general, I have given precise morphological glosses only where the morphemes

xii involved are directly relevant to the discussion. For further analysis, where needed, the reader may refer to the Appendix, which includes complete nominal paradigms.

Introduction

The goal of this study is two-fold. On one hand, I try to provide a description of Basque from the perspective of the Government and Binding (GB) framework of generative grammar. In this respect, I present an analysis of both the overall syntactic organization and of particular constructions of Basque, deriving observed properties from language-specific and independent general principles of Universal Grammar (UG) formulated on the basis of research on languages widely divergent from Basque. Along with this goal of examining what GB can tell us about Basque, I also try to examine, on the other hand, what Basque can tell us about general principles posited within the GB framework. In the principles-and-parameters approach assumed here, core grammars of particular languages are derived by fixing the value of a limited set of parameters within the principles provided by UG. Fundamental similarities shared by the set of natural languages are explained as stemming from the common system of UG that constitutes the basis of the language faculty. Syntactic variation among languages is explained as derived from the existence of parametric options in some of the principles that constitute UG. From this perspective, the evidence from an isolate and apparently highly marked language like Basque becomes extremely relevant to check particular proposals concerning both the principles and the parameters of UG formulated in current research within this framework. Basque seems to differ in several significant ways from Romance and Germanic languages which supply the bulk data from which UG principles have been derived. With these two goals in mind, I will show that principles developed for typologically unrelated languages, with some minor modifications motivated by data from Basque and other languages, succeed in providing explanatory accounts for a wide range of Basque grammatical structures. The discussion on particular structures is built around four general issues which I think represent some of the problems where Basque data are most relevant to current theoretical research: a) ergativity and unaccusativity, b) free word order and configurationality, c) object agreement and prodrop parameter, and d) question and focus formation and related parameters.

xiv O.I BASIC THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS

This study is based on the theoretical assumptions of the Government and Binding (GB) framework of generative grammar, as outlined in Chomsky ( 1981,1982,1986a,b) and subsequent related work. The system is characterized by its modular structure: a set of relatively simple principles interact with each other at different levels of representation, filtering out any structure that violates any of their provisions. The system of 'core grammar' is assumed to be organized as in (1): (1)

D-structure

I

Move-a S-structure Phonological Form (PF)

Logical Form (LF)

The rule Move-a maps D-structures onto S-structures. The variety of rules of previous versions of the Standard Theory is drastically reduced to this simple rule, which, in essence, states 'move anything anywhere'. The wild overgeneration which is an inevitable consequence of this extremely simple formulation of the transformational rule of syntax is checked at different levels by the principles outlined below. 'From' S-structure, the representation is mapped onto the two interpretive components. The rules of the phonological component (deletion rules, filters, stylistic rules, traditional phonological rules, etc.) map the S-structure onto the surface structure in phonetic representation. The rules of the LF (Logical Form) component (construal, quantifier raising, etc.) map S-structures onto their LF representations. The principles (and associated parameters) holding of rules and representations in (1) are organized into the following theories: (2)

X-bar theory 0-theory Government theory Binding theory Case theory Bounding theory Control theory

XV

X-bar theory is a theory of the base component and its organization. The internal structure of syntactic constituents corresponds to a basic pattern of projections of the head category X°. A first projection X' incorporates the head X and its complements. The second projection X " (which I will assume to be the maximal projection) incorporates X' and the specifier. The same pattern holds for lexical (N, A, V, P) and non-lexical categories (I,C). The clausal category I " (IP) has I(INFL) as its head, with VP as complement and the subject as specifier; C " (CP) has the complementizer as its head, IP as its complement and an empty SPEC position as specifier which serves as landing site for wh-words (and foci in Basque). The general clause structure is shown in (3): (3)

C"

VP

I

A significant development over previous versions of the theory is the importance acquired by 0-roles (thematic roles) of 0-theory, corresponding to traditional notions such as 'agent', 'goal', 'experiencer', etc. Only the syntactic aspect of these primarily semantic notions is relevant for the theory: what is important is not which particular 9-role an argument receives, but, rather, whether it is assigned one or not. Verbs and predicates include a 0-grid in the lexicon containing the 6-roles they assign to their complements. 0-role assignment is regulated by the 0-criterion, which ensures that each argument is assigned one and only one 0-role and that each 0-role gets assigned to one and only one argument. Then, movement will be from a 0-position (a position assigned 0-role) to a non 0-position, since otherwise the NP will receive two 0-roles, violating the 0-criterion. Complements are always 0-positions, but not so specifiers. The specifier of I " (the subject position) is sometimes assigned 0-role by VP (that is, by V compositionally with its complements), but only if the verb is marked to do so. Thus, movement to subject is licenced by the 0-criterion for verbs that do not assign any 0-role to the subject. The specifier of C " is never 0-marked, so movement to this SPEC position also conforms to the 0-criterion. In fact, wh-questions and, in Basque, foci move to this position. Since complements are always 0-marked, movement to a complement position (subject to object movement, for instance) is not allowed.

xvi The Projection Principle states that 0-roles in the lexical specification of a verb 'must be represented categorially at each syntactic level' (Chomsky 1982:8). Therefore, at all levels (D-structure, S-structure and LF), there must be a node for each of the complements in the 0-grid of the verb. The subject position is also obligatory for all levels. Since the subject is not always a 0-position, its obligatoriness does not follow from the Projection Principle, but from the requirement that predicates (VP's) be predicated of something, namely, the subject in this case. If the latter is missing, the predicate is not licensed and the structure is ruled out. If categorial nodes for all 0-roles of V have to be present at all levels, it follows that when an argument is moved out of a particular position, that position is not 'erased'. Rather, trace theory assumes that after movement a trace is left in the position of the moved element. The latter and the trace are coindexed by convention, forming a 'chain'. The terminal element of that chain usually occupies the original position to which a 0-role is assigned. Then, the chain 'transmits' the 0-role to the moved element, which will not violate the 0-criterion in this way. Government theory is the basic theory unifying many of the other subtheories. It defines a relation of 'government' holding between the governor, usually the head of a category, and the governed elements. 0role and Case are assigned by the head under government. Before providing a formal definition of government, it is necessary to present the notion 'c-command'. In Aoun and Sportiche (1983), this is defined as follows: (4)

« c-commands j8 iff (i) a does not dominate ¡3 and (ii) every y that dominates a dominates ft

Where 7 is a maximal projection, we can talk of m-command, different from c-command proper, where 7 is identified as the first branching node. Intuitively, a head a governs fi if a c-commands )3 and no barrier intervenes. In the pre-Barriers (Chomsky 1986b) definition of government used in most parts of this study, 'barrier' was understood as a maximal projection, so that a governs /J if a c-commands ¡3 and there is no maximal projection intervening between a and fi, as formalized in (5), from Chomsky (1981:250): (5)

a governs /? iff (i) a = X° (a head) (ii) where a is a maximal projection, if dominates 7 , then dominates a (iii) a c-commands fi

This will be the definition of government relevant in most of this study.

xvii

However, a new definition of 'barrier' has emerged in Chomsky (1986b) which plays a role in some parts of the following discussion. Barriers are defined in terms of 9-marking. A head a 6-marks its complements (assigns a 0-role to them). If a is a lexical category, then it L-marks (lexically marks) the complement. Thus, V L-marks its complement, but I does not, because although I is assumed to 0-mark its complement VP, it is not lexical. The basic concept of barrier is defined as in (6): (6)

a. b.

7 is a Blocking Category (BC) iff y is not L-marked and y dominates /? 7 is a barrier for iff (i) or (ii) (i) 7 immediately dominates 6, 5 a BC for ¡3 (ii) 7 is a BC for /?, y not = IP

Here, y stands for any maximal projection. Then, a maximal projection not 9-marked by a lexical head is a BC. BC's (except IP) are barriers inherently (by ii). Even maximal projections that are L-marked and hence are not BC's may become barriers by 'inheritance', if they immediately dominate a BC (by i). This definition of barrier is also relevant for Bounding theory, which stipulates locality conditions for movement processes. Its most important principle is the subjacency principle, which states that movement may cross one barrier (in the technical sense of (6)), but not two. Returning to Government theory, an important principle of that theory is the Empty Category Principle (ECP), which states that traces must be 'properly governed'. Proper government is a slightly more restrictive form of government. A trace is properly governed if it is a) antecedent governed or b) lexically governed. Traces are antecedent governed if their antecedent governs them. A typical case is that of an antecedent in SPEC position governing a subject trace: there is no barrier intervening between these two elements; consequently, the trace is governed by its antecedent, hence it is properly governed. Lexical government, in one version, refers to government by a verb: traces are properly governed also if governed by V. A more restricted version of lexical government as 9-government will be examined in Chapter 2. There are two important asymmetries between subjects and objects that Government theory can express and that will be important throughout what follows. First, there is an asymmetry of governors: subjects are governed by INFL, and objects are governed by V. Second, an important asymmetry emerges with respect to ECP: object traces are always properly governed by V, but subjects can only be properly governed by antecedent government. This will also become important in the discussion in Chapter 2 on partitives.

xviii Binding theory deals with possible relations of anaphors, pronouns and names with respect to their antecedents. The basic concepts that will be relevant here are 'bound' and 'free'. A category is bound if it is coindexed with an element that c-commands it, and it is free if it is not bound. Binding theory states where and whether different expressions (traces, pronouns, names, anaphors) have to be bound or free. The Principles are as follows: (7)

Binding Principles A. An anaphor is bound in its governing category B. A pronoun is free in its governing category C. An R-expression (referential expression) is free

For the purposes of this study, we can identify governing category as NP or IP, that is, the two nodes that include complete functional complexes with predicates, subjects and complements. Binding theory plays an important role in the identification of gaps or empty categories (EC). Whether an empty category EC is free or bound, and, if bound, what its binder is, determines the type of category a gap in a particular structure belongs to. To distinguish between different types of antecedents, it is necessary to define the notion A-position (loosely, argument position). A-positions are those in which an argument can appear at D-structure. Basically, subjects and complements are A-positions. On the other hand, we will encounter two main A-bar positions (non Apositions): SPEC in CP and those positions created by adjunction, which, by definition, do not occur at D-structure. Then, an A-bar bound empty category (bound by an antecedent in an A-bar position) is identified as a variable. Traces of wh-movement, for instance, are variables, since they are empty categories bound by an element in SPEC. Empty categories bound by an antecedent in an A-position are NP-traces, traces left by movement to an A-position. We will only be concerned with variables in this study, given the scarcity of NP-movement to A-positions in Basque. An important asymmetry related to Binding theory that will be exploited below is that existing in the c-command relation between subjects and objects. Subjects in a configurational structure cannot be bound by objects, but objects can be bound by subjects. This is due to the fact that subjects c-command objects, but not viceversa. Case theory deals with the assignment of abstract case. Case is assigned by a governing case assigner (usually here AGR and V) to a governed element (or a chain). As in 0-theory, what is most relevant is whether a particular NP has case or not. This is due to the Case Filter, which requires lexical (non empty) NP's to bear case. The Case Filter can be incorporated into 9-theory, by requiring 9-role to be assigned only to case-

xix marked elements (or chains). This is the 'visibility' condition: NP's are 'visible' to 9-role assignment only if they are case-marked. Otherwise, they will not receive a 0-role and the G-criterion will be violated. Case theory explains why movement must occur in some cases. If an NP is not assigned case, it must move to a position where it can get case in order to survive the Case Filter. 6-theory ensures that the NP moves to a non 8-position. On the other hand, wh-movement is not determined by Case theory, but by a logico-semantic condition that these operator-like elements have scope over their whole clause. Since scope is represented in terms of c-command relations, wh-elements must move to the SPEC position, where they command everything in their clause. Finally, Control theory is concerned with the choice of antecedents for the empty anaphoric pronominal PRO. By a theorem of Binding theory, PRO must be ungoverned, and can only occur in subject position of tenseless clauses, where there is no governor (neither V nor A G R ) to govern it. In that position, Control theory will determine what its referent will be. In this framework, some of the preceding principles are assumed to contain parameters whose value can be fixed in different ways in different grammars. Given the modularity of the system, setting the value in one way or another will have extremely complex and far-reaching repercussions throughout the grammar of a language. Such parameters account for some of the obvious differences among languages, while the principles which contain them and are part of Universal Grammar account for the obvious similarities that underlie natural languages and which explain the possibility of their acquisition by children. I will be concerned with some of these parameters in the following chapters: the pro-drop, configurationality and Focus parameters are of particular relevance in the study of Basque, and Basque grammar proves to be particularly relevant for the exact formulation of these parameters and related principles. An introductory summary like this cannot aim at covering all of the assumptions that underlie the discussion. The reader is referred to the studies in the bibliography for a comprehensive view of the framework used in this study. Many of the preceding principles will be examined in further detail in the course of the following pages.

Chapter 1

Ergativity in Basque

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Basque is an ergative language, that is, a language where subjects of transitive verbs are marked for the ergative (E) case, and subjects of intransitives and objects of transitives are both marked for the absolutive (A) case. Ergativity presents two main problems for linguistic theory. First, not only are 'subject' arguments of transitive and intransitive verbs marked differently, but, moreover, objects are marked in the same way as some subjects. If there is a correlation between morphological marking and grammatical relations, then ergative languages seem to be reflecting a notion of subject and object which differs from the one displayed by nominativeaccusative languages, which do treat subjects and objects as two separate and non-overlapping classes. What is at stake then is the universality of such grammatical relations as 'subject' and 'object', notions for which it is difficult to provide definitions or identificational procedures outside particular grammatical theories (see Keenan (1976) for one such attempt). However, beginning with Anderson (1976), it has become increasingly clear that morphological ergativity does not often carry over to syntactic ergativity, in that syntactic processes or properties that make reference to 'subjects' or their structural configurational correlates apply equally to the same set of arguments in both accusative and ergative languages, regardless of the particular morphological realization of the arguments in either type of language. While some languages like Nass-Gitksan (Rigsby 1975) and, especially, Dyirbal (Dixon 1972) have been claimed to be syntactically as well as morphologically ergative, they seem to be a marked minority, just as morphologically ergative languages in general are a marked group in relation to the more common accusative type group. The second problem ergative languages present to linguistic theory is precisely why these languages exist and why they have the type of characteristics they often show: frequent absence of a full-fledged passive, and, more interestingly, the common existence of 'split' patterns. Most ergative languages have both ergative and accusative marking systems in complementary distribution where their respective domain usually hinges on tense/aspect on the one hand and inherent agent content of the nominals

2

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

involved on the other. Either type of split seems to occur in most, if not all, ergative languages,1 whether syntactically ergative like Dyirbal or not. On the other hand, Trask (1979) claims that languages showing both types of split are almost non-existent. Given the pervasive lack of syntactic ergativity and the apparently marked character of ergative languages, the usual approach has been to consider ergativity a derivative phenomenon: while the origin of accusativity is not apparently an issue, the origin of ergativity has been so since last century, with much less substantive results than for the first problem outlined above.2 In this chapter I will be mainly concerned with the first type of question. I will try to show that despite morphological case marking, Basque grammar makes use of the notion (and, as will be shown in Chapter Two, of the structural configurations) subject/object much in the same way as nominative-accusative languages do. Some phenomena which might be interpreted as providing evidence for syntactic ergativity will be shown to be explained on the same basis if some classes of monadic verbs are analyzed as unaccusative in Perlmutter's (1978) terms ('ergative' in Burzio's (1981) terminology), that is, as verbs with a single object argument at some level of representation. The goal of the chapter is to make clear the validity of the notions subject/object in Basque despite ergativity in case marking, without entering for the moment into the question of whether these grammatical relations are correlated with configurational structural relations or not. This question will be dealt with in Chapter Two. I will for the most part assume a configurational structure for this chapter, but this particular assumption will not play any crucial role in the argumentation. Section 1.1 presents an introductory description of the ergative morphology of Basque, with a discussion of split ergativity. Section 1.2 concentrates on the syntactic aspects of the question, showing several cases where subjects of transitives and of intransitives behave alike as opposed to objects. In Section 1.3, Marantz's (1984) Ergative Hypothesis is considered in relation to the Basque data, concluding that this language is not 'ergative' in 0-role assignment either. Finally, some apparent counterexamples are examined in Section 1.4 and are shown to be easily explained in terms of the unaccusativity of certain Basque verbs. A case marking system is proposed which in conjunction with the unaccusative analysis of some Basque verbs along the lines of Levin (1983) allows for a reanalysis of Basque morphology as an 'extended ergative' system with a one-toone correlation between grammatical function and morphological case. Except for this last section, most of the discussion is largely theoryindependent and more descriptive than explanatory. This chapter is also intended to familiarize the reader with Basque morphology and syntax in general, and some constructions are presented which will play an important role in subsequent chapters.

Ergativity in Basque

3

1.1 MORPHOLOGICAL ERGATIVITY

Morphological ergativity refers to a particular way of marking subjects and objects of transitive and intransitive verbs. 'Marking' here is not restricted to case marking on nominal phrases, but also includes any coindexing device that refers to the relevant nominals, such as inflection on verbs and auxiliaries, clitics, etc. Ergativity may be manifested both in case marking on nominals and in their cross-referencing agreement markers on verbs or nouns, or only in one of these morphological contexts. Thus, in Jacaltec (Craig 1977) and in Mayan languages in general, both subject and object noun phrases are morphologically unmarked, but their agreement marker on the verbal inflection is different: subject of a transitive is marked in (li) by the ergative first person -w- and subject of intransitive by the absolutive first person marker -in in (lii), also marking agreement for the object in (liii): (1)

i.

hayin x-0-w-ute hun- ti I asp-3A-lE-do one this I did this ii. ch-in axni (hayin) asp-lA bathe I I bathed iii. ch-m haw-ila asp-lA 2E-see You see me

Warlpiri (Hale 1981,1983) provides an example where the opposite situation occurs: independent noun phrases and pronouns are marked in ergative terms, but the clitic system that cross-references the nouns in the auxiliary inflection follows the well-known nominative-accusative system. Therefore, noun phrases that are marked differently in terms of case (subjects of intransitives and of transitives), will be represented by the same inflectional marker, and noun phrases that are marked alike in terms of case (transitive object and intransitive subject) will have different agreement markers, as shown in the following examples: (2)

i. ii.

Ngajulu-rhi ka-rna-palungu maliki-jarra nya-nyi I-E aux-l-3dual dog-dual see-non past I see the two dogs Ngaju ka-rna mata-jarri-mi I-A aux-1 tired-incho-non past I am getting tired

4

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

Here -ma- stands in both sentences for the first person pronoun ngaju regardless of whether this is marked as ergative or unmarked as absolutive. Agreement markers cross-referencing nominals may appear also on nouns rather than on verbs. A typical case involves possessive constructions in many languages, where the noun is 'conjugated', as it were, by means of a set of person markers which is often identical to the set found in verbs. In an accusative language such as Quechua, these person markers are clearly related to the set marking nominative nominals on the verbs, as shown in (3): llank'a-ni llank'a-nki llank'a-n llank'a-nchis llank'a-yku llank'a-nkichis llank'a-nku

I work You work He works We all work We (exclusive) work You work They work

llank'ana-y llank'ana-yki llank'ana-n llank'ana-nchis llank'ana-yku llank'ana-ykichis llank'ana-nku

My (place of) work Your work His work Our work Our work Your work Their work

In Cuzco Quechua, the independent noun phrase is marked with the possessive case, but other Quechua languages (such as Equatorian Imbabura) use the nominative 'subject' personal pronoun for the first person: (4)

Noqa-q wasi-y (Cuzco Quechua) I-poss house-1 sg. My house Nuka wasi (Imbabura Quechua) I house My house

Again, in an ergative language, ergativity might be observed either in the type of case marking on the independent possessor phrase or, more usually, in the usage of the ergative set of markers to cross-reference the possessor's person on the possessed nominal. A clear example where both types of marking follow the ergative pattern is supplied by Eskimo: the possessor

Ergativity in Basque

5

is marked by the ergative (also called 'genitive', although there does not seem to be any logical priority in their uses) and the possessed nominal is also cross-marked with the transitive ergative ending for third person absolutive, as shown in (5) (from Kalmar 1979): anaana-ga anaana-it anaana-nga/-a anaana-vut anaana-si anaana-ngat/-at

My mother Your mother His mother Our Your (pi) Their

takuva-ra takuva-it takuva-nga/-a takuva-vut takuva-si takuva-ngat/-at

I see it You see it He sees it We You (pi) They

Sentence (6) shows the ergative marker on the possessor noun phrase to be identical with the transitive subject marker: (6)

i. ii.

Tirigania-p uqsu-nga fox-E fat-3/3 A/the fox's fat Tirigania-p takuva-nga fox-E see-3/3 A/the fox sees it

Such identity between ergative and possessive case-marking is attested for a variety of languages such as Burushaski and Northern Caucasian (Trask 1979), and can be explained in terms of the semantic closeness between two place predications and possessive predications, which involve a possessor, agent-like subject and a possessed patient-like object. Related to this possessive use of the ergative seems to be the appearence of ergative agreement markers on prepositional phrases, reported in Eskimo (Kalmar 1979) and Mayan languages (Craig 1977). Locational adpositions involving genitives occur in both ergative and non-ergative languages (cfr. English in front of Spanish dentro de 'inside') and in both Eskimo and Jacaltec ergative agreement markers are used in possessive structures like the ones discussed above.3 Basque does not show this type of ergative morphology: possessed nominals do not incorporate any cross-referencing affixes and appear only

6

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

in the case dictated by the function of the possessed phrase in the sentence. As for the possessor, it is expressed by a special possessive genitive case marking. However, Basque is consistently ergative in both case marking in nominals and in their agreement elements on the verb. Section 1.1.1 deals with ergativity in the case system and 1.1.2 with the verbal inflection, including a discussion of the split pattern in the past. 1.1.1 Case Marking Table 1 shows the absolutive and ergative case endings in the three numbers (singular, plural and indefinite). For ease of reference, a complete nominal paradigm is attached as Appendix 1. These endings are attached to the last constituent of the noun phrase only. 4 The ergative pattern is displayed by the examples in (7), involving a transitive and an intransitive sentence: TABLE 1

Ergative Absolutive (7)

i.

ii.

Singular

Plural

Indefinite

-ak -a

-ek -ak

-(e)k -0

Ikasle-ek harri-ak bota zituzten Student-pE stone-sA throw aux The students threw stones Harri-ak gogorr-ak dira stone-pA hard-pA are Stones are hard

Here both transitive object (TO) and intransitive subject (IS) are marked by the same absolutive plural case ending, as opposed to the ergatively marked transitive subject (TS). While the homophony between plural and ergative morphemes (both -k) obscures it, singular and indefinite forms show that, as is generally the case in ergative languages, ergative is the marked case and absolutive the unmarked one, while in accusative languages nominative is usually the unmarked case and accusative the marked one. This can be explained if, as Dixon (1979) suggests, both types of languages parametrically differ in marking one or the other of the nominals involved in the morphological context where both cooccur, namely, in transitive clauses with two argument verbs. Intransitive clauses with a subject nominal only appear with the unmarked case (absolutive or accusative) since the nominal need not be marked to be kept apart from any other 'term' nominal. In transitive clauses, where both subject and object occur, each language

Ergativity in Basque

7

type selects one of the nominals as marked: subject in ergative languages and object in accusative languages. However, this needs some qualification. First, while one would expect the explanation for 'unmarkedness' of IS's to extend not only to case marking on nominals but also to agreement markers, this is not necessarily the case. Thus, while Jacaltec shows third person unmarked absolutive markers on the verb, Basque, as will be shown in the following section, has unmarked third person ergative markers and marked absolutives on the verb. 5 On the other hand, in some accusative languages with object person agreement like Cuzco Quechua, where the accusative noun is marked by -ta and nominative is unmarked, third person accusative is unmarked on the verb, while nominative is marked: compare riku-0-ni 'I see him, it' and riku-wa-n 'he sees me'. Thus, markedness in the person marking system may differ from the case marking system, presumably due to the fact that both case and person are involved in the former. Secondly, considerations of grammatical relations may override markedness facts. In a language like Jacaltec, aspectless clauses present a nominative/accusative pattern of marking on the verb: TS and IS are treated in a different way from TO's, but it is affixes that cross-mark ergative nominals that now mark 'subjects' in this context, while objects are crossreferenced by the set of affixes normally marking absolutive phrases. This type of marking system has been called 'extended ergative' in Dixon (1979), since it deviates from the normal markedness relation in accusative systems in that it is the subject that appears as the morphologically marked term of the opposition. We will see later that it is possible to analyze Basque as an extended ergative language in Dixon's sense. Ergative seems to qualify as the subject marking case since it is the only one that is exclusively associated with subject noun phrases in the ergative pattern. This is more clearly shown in Cashinaua (see pronoun table in (15)), where ergative is marked by nasalization of the last vowel of the nominal phrase. In this language, a split occurs in first and second personal pronouns, which follow the accusative pattern: again, 'subject' in the accusative split pattern is associated with the morphologically marked nasalized form of the pronoun, the ergative, rather than with the morphologically unmarked absolutive form. 1.1.2 Person Agreement Marking Basque verbs incorporate four types of person agreement markers: agreement marks ergative, absolutive, dative nominals in the clause, and also, optionally, the addressee of the speech situation. Since the latter type of agreement does not involve any argument in the clause, it will not be considered here. 6

8

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

The following paradigm represents the main ergative, absolutive and dative markers on the verb: variants irrelevant to the discussion are eliminated: ABS Sg. 1 n2 h3 d-/z-

DAT (i)-t (i) -n/k (i)-o

ERG -t -n/k -0

Pl. 1 2 2' 3

(i) -gu (i) -zu (i) -zue (i)-e

-gu -zu -zue -te

gzzd-/z-

(singular informal)

(singular formal) (plural)

Second person singular forms are included separately, the informal one in the singular and the formal one among plural markers, since the latter shares morphological features of plural forms. 2 stands then for the actual second person plural markers. The third person absolutive marker appears in different shapes in present, past, conditional/ potential and imperative forms. Only the present (d-) and past (z-) morphemes will concern us in the following discussion. Dative markers are preceded by a 'pre-dative' marker -(k)i-. In addition, there is a series of plural markers that are associated with plural absolutive persons, with a variety of shapes for different tenses and verbs: -it-, -z-,-tza-, -izk-, etc. Absolutive affixes precede the verbal stem, while dative and ergatives follow it in that order. All Basque verbs include an absolutive agreement marker, whether corresponding to an actual argument or not. Verbs fall into two main subclasses, according to whether they may include an ergative marker (traditionally called transitives) or not (intransitives). Each class will incorporate a dative agreement marker if there is a dative argument in the clause. We have then four verb classes out of all the logical possibilities for combinations of E(rgative), A(bsolutive) and D(ative): (9)

Intransitives Transitives

1) A 3) A, E

2) A, D 4) A, D, E

The basic fact is then whether a given verb is an A or an AE verb; it will occur with or without the dative agreement marker, depending on whether the verb (optionally or obligatorily) takes a dative argument. At present, only a few Basque verbs incorporate directly all the markers (agreement, tense, pluralizers, etc) along with the root supplying the lexical meaning.7 These are called 'synthetic' verbs in Basque grammars. The great majority are conjugated with the help of several auxiliary verbs which

Ergativity in Basque

9

convey agreement markers, mood (usually a particular auxiliary is associated with a particular mood) and the remaining information. The main verb supplies only aspectual information (habitual, future or perfective aspect) and lexical meaning in these cases. The two main auxiliaries we will be concerned with are intransitive izan 'to be' and transitive *edun 'to have'. 8 Other auxiliaries are intransitive *edin and transitive *ezan (which like *edun, do not have tenseless forms nor even the citation perfective form). We give below some examples of both synthetic and periphrastic verbs for each class, in different tenses. Synthetic verbs only have hypothetical, present and past forms and also require auxiliaries to form other tenses:

(10) i. ii.

(11) i. ii.

(13) i. ii.

(14)

Synthetic

Periphrastic

A verbs n-en-bil-en lA-pst-wa/A:-pst I walked d-a-to-z 3A-prs-cowe-pl They come

jaus-i-ko z-a-ra fall-prf-fut 2A-prs-iza/i You will fall ibil-tzen n-in-tz-en walk-hab lA-pst-/zan-pst I used to walk

AD verbs z-a-to-z-ki-t hurbil n-a-ki-o-ke 2A-prs-come-pl-dat-1D approach lA-prs-dat-3D-pot You come to me I can approach him joan-go g-in-tza-izk-i-e-n z-e-go-ki-o-n go-fut 1 A-pst-/za«-pl-dat-3D-pst 3A-pst-Äe-dat-3D-pst It corresponded to him We would go to them AE verbs n-ind-erama-zu-n 1 A-pst-carry-2E-pst You carried me d-a-kar-tza-te 3A-prs-Är«i£-pl-3E They bring them

ekar g-a-it-za-zu-n bring lA-prs-pl-eza«-2E-comp So that you bring us (Subjunctive) ekarr-i-ko g-a-it-u-z-te bring-prf-fut 1 A-prs-pl-eiA/n-z-3E They will bring us

AED verbs d-eritz-o-t 3A-think-3D-lE I consider it . . .

ema-n d-i-eza-zu-ke-t give-prf 3A-i-ezan-2D-pot-lE I can give it to you

10

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque ii.

d-a-rama-zk-i-da-te esa-ten d-izk-i-da-zu 3A-prs-carry-pl-dat-1D-3 E say-hab 3A-pl-dat-lD-2E They carry them to me You tell them to me

As can be observed, even though most verbs do not have a conjugation of their own, that of the few synthetic and auxiliary verbs is extremely intricate due to the amount of forms involved for the different combinations of agreement and other markers. As mentioned above, all ergative languages seem to have subsystems in their case or agreement marking systems that follow nominativeaccusative patterns, usually geared on the person/animacy/indefiniteness of the nominal or pronominal or the aspect/tense of the verb. Both types of split seem to be independent and, as Trask (1979) claims, no ergative language appears to have both types of split, as the phenomenon is called. Silverstein (1976) has shown that NP splits can be accounted for in terms of a hierarchy of noun phrases based on their 'inherent lexical content': some noun phrases can function as agents or patients in a 'semantically more natural way' than others. First and second person pronouns occupy the highest position in the hierarchy, occurring more naturally as agents than nouns with a lower inherent agentive character such as non-human, inaminate nouns. Silverstein shows that ergative languages cut at some definite point in the hierarchy, reserving the nominative-accusative subsystem for noun phrases at the top of the hierarchy and ergative subsystems for the noun phrases underneath that dividing line. Splits are particularly common in pronoun systems. Even a syntactically ergative language like Dyirbal (Dixon 1972) shows them: first and second person pronouns have an accusative pattern, with unmarked subject form for TS and IS and marked object form for TO. Similarly, in Cashinaua, we find the following pronoun pattern: (15) 1. 2. 3.

TS

IS

TO

I ml habu

I ml habu

ia mia haa

Here, first and second person pronouns follow the nominative-accusative pattern, using the ergatively marked (nasalized) pronoun as subject and adding the affix -a for objects. The third person, on the borderline of the hierarchy, displays a three-way distinction, incorporating both nominative-accusative (zero vs. -a) and ergative-absolutive (nasalization of ergative). Basque is consistently ergative in its case marking system: all TS's are

Ergativity in Basque

11

marked ergative and T O / I S absolutive thoughout, regardless of inherent agentive content or tense. However, there is a well-known case of split in the person agreement system cross-referencing noun phrases on the verb. In the past tense, first and second person ergative noun phrases are crossmarked in the verb by absolutive agreement markers when the absolutive is third person. The third person is then unmarked or marked by zero, which normally corresponds to the third person singular ergative. (16) gives examples of past tense sentences with split combination of pronouns, and (17) with non split combinations: (16)

i.

(ni-k) polizi-ei harri-ak bota n-izk-i-e-n I-E police-pD stone-pA throw lA-pl-dat-3D-pst I threw stones at the police ii. (Gu-k) ez g-en-u-en polizia-rik ikusi we-E neg lA-pst-ei/wn-pst police-part see We did not see any police iii. (Gu-k) ke pote-ak bota g-en-izk-i-e-n smoke pot-pA throw lA-pst-pl-dat-3D-pst We threw smoke bombs at them iv. (Zu-k) gorri-ak ikusi z-en-it-u-en you-E red-pA see 2A-pst-pl-ei/wn-pst You had a rough time (You saw the red ones)

(17)

i.

ii.

(Gu) polizi-ek harrapatu g-int-u-z-te-n we-A police-pE catch lA-pst-erfwn-z-pE-pst The police caught us (Ni-k) (zu) benetan maite z-int-u-da-n I-E you-A really love 2A-pst.-edun-1 E-pst I really loved you

Cases where both ergative and absolutive are third person are ambiguous and admit in principle either (split or non-split) analysis. For a form like zuen, the two analyses in (18) are possible: (18)

i. ii.

z-u-0-en 3A-erf««-3sE-pst z-u-en 3A ( = 3E)-edw«-pst

2- is the absolutive third person marker and zero the third person ergative, and they might correspond to the independent noun phrases directly, in an ergative pattern, or in the split pattern where the absolutive marker refers to the ergative nominal and there is no marking for the absolutive nominal. One example is given below:

12

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

(19)

Ikasle-ak harri-a bota z-u-en student-sE stone-sA throw 3A-«/w«-pst The student threw the stone

However, when the ergative subject is pluralized and the TS/TO relation is 3pl/3sg (unlike the 3s/3s in (18)), the unambiguous form zuten occurs, with two separate affixes: the third person plural -te and the third person (plural or singular) z-: (20)

Ikasle-ek harri-a bota z-u-te-n -pE -sA 3A-ei/wn-3pE-pst The students threw the stone

This suggests that z- in (18) is the agreement element for the absolutive, as in (20), and that there is a zero third person ergative marker, that is, a situation where the non-split pattern prevails. Although this analysis makes the statement of the split apparently more comlicated ('split occurs for 1,2 E / 3 A', rather than simply 'split occurs whenever we have 3A'), it makes possible its explanation in terms of Silverstein's hierarchy, as will be presently seen. It should be noticed that pluralizers, which exist only for absolutive plural persons, still mark plural absolutive noun phrases rather than the ergative ones that now correspond to the absolutive agreement marker, as can be observed in (16i, iii, iv): in (16i), for example, -izk cannot be pluralizing the absolutive agreement marker, which is the first person singular n- agreeing with the ergative first person pronoun nik, but instead, it has to be marking the absolutive plural noun phrase harriak 'the stones'. The same is also clearly seen in (21), where the first person ergative pronoun nik is marked as ergative in the present and as absolutive in the past, but the absolutive object pluralizer -it- remains unchanged: (21)

i. ii.

Ni-k harri-ak bota d-it-u-t I-E stone-pA throw 3A-pl-ei/wn-lsE I have thrown stones Ni-k harri-ak bota n-it-u-en lsA-pl-ei/wn-pst I threw stones

Since the split occurs only with third person absolutives and whether it is third singular or plural is independently reflected by pluralizers, no ambiguity results. Summing up, where the split occurs, ergative noun phrases are marked by absolutive agreement prefixes, and absolutives are left unmarked.

Ergativity in Basque

13

Whether the latter are singular or plural is disambiguated by the set of absolutive pluralizers. The resulting agreement pattern is nominativeaccusative in that where the split occurs the four verb classes in (9) are reduced to two: (22)

Intransitives Transitives

1) A 3) A

2) A, D 4) A,D

In all verb classes in (22) the subject, whether TS or IS, is marked by the same absolutive index. In this case what is involved is not a paradigmatic hierarchy between persons of the same semantic role (agents in Silverstein's proposal), but rather a syntagmatic relation between agents and patients that cooccur in the same agreement domain. However, the hierarchy applies equally well and with the correct predictions. Like other languages, Basque makes the cut between first and second persons on the one hand and third persons on the other, only that the relation is not between n person agents, but between agents and patients: if the agent outranks the patient across the dividing line, the split accusative system will occur. This occurs both in 1/3 and 2/3 combinations of TS/TO, but not in 1/2 or 3/3. As for the particular distribution of both systems, the data conform to Silverstein's observation: the accusative pattern occurs for agents above the dividing line that outrank the patients. Where no such outranking occurs, the ergative system is used. Notice that although in the split system only absolutive person agreement markers appear, along with indirect objects if there is any in the clause, forms of the transitive *edun auxiliary are used, rather than of the intransitive izan, the auxiliary used for ergativeless combinations of arguments. The clause is still transitive, as case marking on the nominals indicates.9 The Basque data are uncommon in a number of ways. First, as Dixon (1979:92) points out, case marking and cross-referencing agreement systems are logically distinct (and actually differentiated for ergativity, as shown in the Jacaltec and Warlpiri cases) and therefore the fact that the split in the verbal agreement markers does not carry over to the independent nominals, whose pattern is always ergative, is not surprising. However, it is generally the case that NP splits characterized in terms of the agency hierarchy appear to be marked on the NP themselves, as was the case in Dyirbal and Cashinaua as discussed above. In Basque, on the other hand, the split occurs on the agreement system only. Second, the split described above is atypical in that it involves both an NP and a tense split at the same time: 1,2/3 relations will only be marked by an accusative system if the verb occurs in the past or hypothetical tense. Other tenses do not show any trace of split. Thirdly, the tense conditioning of the

14

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

split is the opposite of attested tense split systems, as I will try to show. Mayan languages and Georgian are some of the most often cited cases with respect to aspect-tense splits. The domain of the split is uniformly past tense or perfective aspect. Again, the split can be seen either in the agreement system (Mayan) or in the case marking system (Georgian). In Mayan languages (Larsen and Norman 1979), TS and IS are marked alike in incompletive (progressive) tenses, as opposed to TO. Compare the second singular agreement marker in the past versus progressive tenses in Mopan: (23) i. ii.

Past a-lox-aj-en 2E-hit-suf-lA You hit me lub'-eech fall-2A You fell

Progressive tan a-lox-ik-en prog 2E-hit-suf-lA You are hitting me tan a-lub'-ul prg 2E-fall-suf You are falling

Second person IS is marked in the progressive by a-, that is, the same affix that marks TS in transitive progressives, as opposed to the absolutive -eech of past tense. Notice that the emerging pattern is extended ergative, with marked subjects and unmarked objects, rather than the more normal accusative. In this type of split, the ergative pattern is displayed in the past/perfective tense. A similar situation occurs in Pashto (see Huang (1984) for some data). In Georgian (Harris 1981), an ergative pattern emerges in the past tense. Here it is only case marking that reflects this type of 'ergativity'. In the aorist (representing 'past time, complete aspect and indicative mood') and optative tenses the subject of transitive verbs and of some intransitives are marked in the ergative, while object and subject of some intransitive verbs remain in the nominative case of other tenses ('absolutive' in this context). Compare (24i) and (24ii): (24)

i. ii.

Kartuli ena sesxulobs sitqvebs rusulidan Georgian language-A borrows-pres words-D Russian-from The Georgian language borrows words from Russian Kartul/na enam isesxa sitqvebi rusulidan Georgian language-E borrow-pst words-A The Georgian language has borrowed words from Russian

Sentence (24ii) shows the ergative case marker -m(a) on the TS phrase, and a nominative (absolutive) TO marked in the same way as the TS in (24i), with a present tense verb. Although Harris (1981) has reinterpreted these data, as will be shown below, the traditional description has been to account for this distribution of case markings as a case of ergativity in the relevant past tenses.

Ergativity in Basque

15

Where a tense/aspect split occurs, the patterns are distributed along the lines of the preceding Georgian and Mayan examples: the ergative pattern occurs in the past tense (Georgian) or in perfect tenses (Mayan languages). On the other hand, in Basque the accusative pattern is found only in the past tense (aspect is not involved). It should be concluded that this split does not correspond exactly to either of the typical ergative types of split: as an NP split it is limited by tense; as a tense split, it does not correspond to the pattern observed elsewhere. As will be shown later, even Basque morphology may be reinterpreted in non-ergative terms, and as we have shown, typically ergative characteristics like the existence of split systems turn out to be not so 'typical' as they appear to be on a first look. In the following section, I will show that Basque does not even show traces of syntactic ergativity either, and in Section 1.4 a reanalysis of the morphological data will be provided.

1.2 SYNTACTIC ERGATIVITY. TS/IS GROUPING CONSTRUCTIONS IN BASQUE

In this section, some constructions of Basque will be considered that seem to treat TS's and IS's as a class with a behavior different from TO's. Some evidence for this degree of accusativity in Basque grammar has been provided by Anderson (1976) and Levin (1983). Here I will revise their evidence, which due to the incompleteness of the data does not often actually show what it is intended to show. Some additional evidence is also brought forth. 1.2.1 Control Structures Levin (1983) includes a description of some apparent control structures in Basque with complements of jussive verbs such as agindu 'to order', esan 'to say, to order' and eskatu 'to ask'. These verbs occur with tenseless nominalized complements marked by the locative genitive case ending -ko, as shown in (25): (25)

i. ii.

Gaur-ko kazeta eros-te-ko eskatu diot today-of newspaper buy-nom-for ask aux (I) have asked (him) to buy today's newspaper Berehala joa-te-ko esan dio Immediately go-nom-for say aux (He) has told (him) to go immediately

Levin shows that the missing argument in the complement clause which is interpreted as controlled by the object argument in the matrix can be

16

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

a TS as in (i), or an IS as in (ii), but not a TO, suggesting again a notion of subject identifying TS/IS and excluding TO. The argument is not conclusive for two reasons. First, as is generally the case with nominalized co .plements, subject arguments of these complement clauses can be realised as case marked, phonologically realized noun phrases, indicating that these are not obligatory control structures, and that the subject of the complement need not have the same referent as the matrix object. Thus, in (26) (26)

Ni-k ikus-te-ko agindu du I-E see-nom-for order aux He has ordered that I see it

the subject of ikusi 'to see' is not any phonologically null pronominal element, but rather a {.lonologically realized pronoun which is not coreferential with any matrix argument. Secondly, although there are cases where 'subjects' as opposed to 'objects' are interpreted as coreferential with a matrix object, it seems to be again a universal characteristic of jussive complements in both otherwise ergative and accusative languages. Dixon (1979) claims this is also the case for simple imperative clauses, a related type of clause often brought to attention as criterial for ergativity.10 There are, however, other constructions which semantically differ from jussive complements and syntactically seem to involve obligatory control structures. It is on the basis of these constructions that an argument for the accusativity of control phenomena can be built. The constructions are indirect wh-questions, which can appear as perfect participial complements of certain verbs, as in the following sentences: (27) (28)

Ez dakit [aldizkari-ak nor-i ema-n] neg know magazine-pA who-D give-prf I don't know who to give the magazines to Berehala ikasi nuen [nola egi-n] immediately learn aux how do-prf I immediately learned how to do it

Unlike the restructured participial complements in section 1.2.5., these sentences have two 'focus positions' immediately preceding the matrix and embedded verbs. The embedded focus position is occupied by the whquestion word: only indirect wh-questions are acceptable in these constructions, indirect yes-no questions being ungrammatical:

Ergativity in Basque (29)

17

i.

*Ez dakit Peru etorr-i neg know Peter come-prf I don't know whether Peter has come ii. *Ez dakit zu-rekin joa-n you-with go-prf I don't know whether I should go with you or not

Since only wh-questions are possible, the wh-word will occur as focus of the embedded participial. Unlike restructured participial complements, embedded arguments are not cross-marked in the matrix verb inflection: eman 'to give' in (27) has a plural absolutive and a dative noun phrase, but the matrix verb dakit 'I know' is marked for singular absolutive (standing for the sentential complement) and does not incorporate any dative affix. Embedded wh-questions are obligatory control structures: no casemarked lexical NP may appear as subject of the participle: (30)

*Jon-ek ba daki ni-k zer egi-n John-E know I-E what do-prf John knows what I/me to do

Case assignment in tenseless complements is discussed in 3.3.1. For the moment, we can assume that since participial clauses do not have any mechanism to assign case to the subject, there being no inflection, only PRO can occur, nik in (30) would then violate the case filter. In nahi/ behar 'want/need' complements, these PRO's are 'erased' after Reanalysis. However, here PRO is still present at LF, as an argument bound to a controller NP. Crucially, the gap in the complement which I have preliminarily identified as a controlled PRO can be either TS or IS, not TO: (31)

(Ni-ki) ez dakit [PROi nor-i ema-n] I-E neg know who-D give-prf I don't know who to give it to

(32)

Zu-ki ez dakizu [PROi no-ra joa-n] you-E neg know wh-to go-prf You do not know where to go

In (31), it is the (transitive) 'subject' of transitive eman 'to give' and in (32) the (intransitive) 'subject' of joan 'to go'. Notive that (31) also includes a gap for the transitive object; however, object gaps are never controlled arguments. Of the two gaps that the Extended Projection Principle predicts for (31) only the subject TS is controlled by a matrix argument. Fur-

18

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

thermore, only objects may be phonologically realized (as aldizkariak 'magazines' in (27)) while as shown above subject gaps may not be so. It seems therefore that Basque does have control structures which do not involve universal semantic notions of subject in Dixon's sense but that still treat TS/IS as the same functional category with properties different from these of TO's. In as much as control is a syntactic phenomenon, this area of Basque syntax is based on the accusative notion of 'subject' and 'object', rather than on independent 'ergative' relations like 'absolutive' and 'ergative'. 1.2.2 Genitive objects In this section, I will show that in some dialects of Basque, absolutive objects may be optionally marked genitive in nominalized clauses. This marking is available only for objects. Subjects (whether absolutive or ergative) cannot be so marked. Thus, whether an argument is absolutive or not is not the relevant information to predict its ability to be also marked genitive. Rather, the relevant notion is 'object'. This type of case marking is restricted to nominalized complements. Excluding participial clauses like the ones reviewed in the preceding section and other adverbial clauses, most tenseless subordinate clauses in Basque have nominalized verbal forms as heads. A nominalizing suffix -te is attached to the verbal root and the deverbal noun can then be inflected with different case endings according to the grammatical or semantic functions of the subordinate clause in the matrix sentence. For a verb like ikusi 'to see', the derived form ikuste 'the seeing' is formed. Some nominalized embedded clauses are shown in (33), formed with the nominalized form of the verb gerarazi 'to paralyze': (33)

i.

[Gobernu-ak zentral nuklearr-a gerarazte]-ak poztu gintuen govern.-E plant nuclear-A stop-E happy aux The government's paralyzing the nuclear plant made us happy ii. Asko gustatu zitzaien [gobernuak zentrala gerarazte]-a much like aux -A They liked a lot the government's paralyzing the plant iii. Zer deritzozu [gobernuak zentrala gerarazte]-ari? what think -D What do you think about the government's paralyzing the plant? iv. [Gobernuak zentrala gerarazte]-an haserratu egin ziren -at get angry o aux They got angry when the government paralyzed the plant

Ergativity in Basque

19

v.

[Gobernuak zentrala gerarazte}-ko manifestaldiak egin ziren -of demonstrations do aux Demonstrations were made in order for the government to paralyze the plant vi. Ez dago [zentrala gerarazte]-rik neg is -part There is no (way of) paralyzing the plant

In (i, ii, iii), where the nominalized clause is marked E, A and D, respectively, the inflection of the matrix is consequently marked for the embedded clause too. Similarly in (vi), the partitive corresponding to A in some contexts (see 1.4 and 2.2.2.3) corresponds to the absolutive agreement marker as usual. Noun phrases in the nominalized clause maintain the same marking pattern as in tensed clauses. In (i) the embedded subject is marked ergative and the object absolutive. In intransitive nominalized verbs, the subject will be marked absolutive. Some northern dialects, however, sometimes deviate from this pattern in an interesting way. In a sentence like (34) (quoted in Lafon 1943) the transitive object appears in the genitive case: (34)

Eriden ukan dugu populu-aren korrumpi-tze-n eta tribut-en find have aux people-gen corrupt-nom-in and tribut-gen Cesar-i emai-te-tik debeka-tze-n ari de-la Caesar-D give-nom-from prohibit-nom-in be is-that We have found that he is corrupting the people and prohibiting (from) to give tributes to Caesar

In the first conjunct the object of the nominalized verb in the inesive case is populuaren 'of the people' and in the second conjunct we find the genitivized object tributen 'of the tributes'. Such case marking is optional, and both genitive and absolutive objects can be found. However, not all absolutive phrases can correspond to a genitive phrase in this context: TO' but not IS's may do so, as pointed out in Heath (1972).11 Contrast the sentence above with (35): (35)

*ene etor-tze-ko my come-nom-of For me to come, for my coming

Here the genitive form ene is not acceptable. Again, we see here IS's patterning with TS's rather than with the morphologically identical TO's. This phenomenon supplies evidence for 'subject' and 'object' notions in Basque. Non-locative noun complements in Basque appear in the possessive genitive case, as in (36):

20

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

(36)

Problem-en azalpena problem-gen explanation The explanation of the problems

(37)

Herri-en zapalketa people-gen oppression The oppression of peoples

In this sense, 'objects' of nominalizations are complements of the nominalized verb that receive the case of noun complements. With respect to the subject, however, these constructions differ in that subjects of nominal phrases also appear in the genitive case, as in (38)

Chomsky-ren azalpena Chomsky-gen explanation Chomsky's explanation

(39)

Erromatarr-en zapalketa Roman-gen oppression The Romans' oppression

On the other hand, subjects of nominalization must retain the ergative or absolutive case corresponding to subjects of independent tensed clauses. I will return to this construction in 3.3.1. What is important now is that in these nominalizations, 'object' complements may take the form of noun complements, that is, the genitive marker, while 'subjects', both ergative and absolutive, remain in their subject case. We see then that whatever the interpretation of this phenomenon, it works on an accusative basis, unifying as a set TS and IS and disregarding the morphological identity between IS and TO, which is not reflected in common syntactic patterning. 1.2.3 Anaphors In this section I will show that absolutive anaphors are possible only if they correspond to the object of a clause, but not if they are subjects. Since ergative (hence subject) anaphors are always impossible, the important generalization is that 'subject' anaphors are not permitted. Again 'ergative' and 'absolutive' are notions that play no role in this respect, since some absolutive anaphors are possible while some others are not, crucially depending on the functional notions 'subject' and 'object'. Anaphoric relations involve pairs of antecedent-anaphor elements where the referent of the anaphor is established by its relation with the independently referring antecedent. Theories of anaphors have to account for

Ergativity in Basque

21

both what can serve as antecedent and the 'locality' of the relation, which must be limited to certain specific domains. In GB the properties of anaphora are derived from general principles requiring a certain structural relation (c-command) between the pairs and defining the domain (governing category) where the anaphor has to be bound to the antecedent. At a more descriptive level, theories of anaphors have to explain, for instance, why some languages (Korean), may restrict possible antecedents to subjects and why, as noted in Chomsky (1986a), anaphors in noun clauses are subject oriented in that they can take as antecedent a subject outside the NP, but not an object, as shown in (40): (40)

a. *I showed them pictures of each other b. They showed me pictures of each other

Theories of anaphora also have to explain why subject anaphors are not possible, unless a particular process like Exceptional Case Assignment in English makes the subject part of a governing category outside its S, as in 'They want each other to win', with a reciprocal 'subject' (in this analysis) anaphor. No such process is available in Basque and we observe that absolutive noun phrases behave differently according to whether they are functionally IS anaphors or TO anaphors. The absolutive reciprocal anaphor elkar in Basque is possible only if it happens to function as a TO, but not if it happens to be an IS: (41)

i.

Lagun-ek elkar ikusi zuten friend-E recip.-A see aux The friends saw each other ii. * Elkar joan zen/ziren lagun-ekin recip.-A go aux friend-with •Each other went with the friends

The restriction is not, then, on absolutive anaphors, since TO and IS, both absolutive, behave differently; in fact it is on 'subjects', since IS's share this behaviour with ergative TS: (42)

*Elkarr-ek ikusi zituzten lagun-ak recip.-E see aux friend-A *Each other saw the friends

In the following chapter, a more explanatory account of anaphoric relations will be offered. Here the point is that for whatever reason, IS and TS anaphors are not possible, setting aside together two differently case-marked elements, while TO anaphors are possible, cross-cutting what for case assignment purposes is one single class. Such grouping conforms to the accusative pattern.

22

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

1.2.4 Coordinate Structures Some cooccurrence restrictions between arguments in coordinated and subordinated structures provide the typical cases on which claims about ergativity can be based. In Dyirbal (Dixon 1972), for example, consecutive sentences with a common topic form 'topic chains' where the topic is only stated at the beginning of the chain. What sets this topic chain apart is that the 'topic' is a nominal in the absolutive case, whether IS or TO. Two consecutive sentences sharing TS and IS cannot constitute a topic chain in this sense; instead, the antipassivized affix -nay- has to be added to the second verb, whose 'subject' is then marked absolutive and can thus enter the topic chain. Consequently, topic is identified on an ergative basis, since it is defined as the absolutive (TO/IS) nominal, rather that the 'subject' (TS/IS) nominal. Basque shows an accusative syntax at this level too. A common phenomenon occurring in coordinated clauses with the coordinators edo 'or' and eta 'and' involves the elimination of all inflection in one of the conjuncts: its verb will appear in its participial form, while the verb in the other conjunct maintains its full shape (including the auxiliary, if tensed). Some expamples are shown below: (43)

i. ii.

Sartzen lagundu nion eta helbide-a eman gidari-ari enter help aux and address-A give driver-D I helped him get on and I gave the driver the address Esku finegi-ak ditut iluntasun-ean harrapatu eta hand too soft-A have darkness-in catch and izkuta-tzeko hide-for My hands are too soft to catch [it] and hide [it] in the darkness

In (i) two tensed clauses have been coordinated; both share the auxiliary form nion, which appears only in the first conjunct and is omitted in the second one. In (ii) two purposive nominalized clauses are coordinated. The verb appears with the nominalizing suffix -te- and the purposive -ko only in the second conjunct, while the first one is left in the participial form. This type of deletion is not restricted to conjuncts sharing a verb with the same auxiliary or the same tenseless shape. The examples in (44) contain both transitive and intransitive verbs, hence different auxiliary forms in unreduced sentences: (44)

i.

Arnas-a har-tzeko urgaineratu eta musu eman zuten breath-A take-for emerge and kiss given aux They emerged from the water to take breath and kissed

Ergativity in Basque ii.

23

Miloi asko ba-nitu edo Hong-Kong-en bizi... million manyif-had or Hong-Kong-in live If I had many millions of (if I) lived in Hong-Kong...

In fact, the only restriction is that both conjuncts share the subject argument, not the absolutive or ergative, as (44i) and (44ii) show: the missing dropped subject in (i) would be absolutive in the first conjunct and ergative in the second, and the opposite holds true for (ii). A sentence like (45)

Seme-a eskola-n utzi eta klase-ra joan zen son-A school-at leave and class-to go aux (S/he) left his/her son at school and went to class

cannot be interpreted as having the absolutive semea 'the son' of the first conjunct as the absolutive subject of the second conjunct: the sentence has to be interpreted as sharing a nominal that does the taking (TS) and the going (IS). This accusativity is equally observed in normal coordination where both conjuncts keep their full verbal forms, as in (46): (46)

Semea eskolan utzi zuen eta klasera joan zen aux aux (S/he) left his/her son at school and went to class

The ergative TS of utzi 'to leave' is interpreted as the IS of joan 'to go', rather than the absolutive TO of the first conjunct semea 'the son', even though the later shares case marking with the intransitive subject. It seems therefore that the key nominal is the 'subject', as opposed to the 'object' and homophonous case marking in the morphology does not have any relevance in the syntactic component. 12 As I have shown in the previous sections, this seems to be a rather pervasive characteristic of Basque syntax, pointing at an accusative type of patterning of TS/IS/TO arguments. 1.2.5 Reanalysis Control phenomena have been used as tests for the accusative or ergative character of a language under the assumption that the embedded controlled argument (or deleted EQUI NP) is the 'subject' of the subordinate clause. In accusative languages the controlled argument is always TS and IS, rather than TO. As Anderson (1976) pointed out, the same test applied to Basque indicates that the controlled argument is also TS/IS, despite their different morphological marking for ergative and absolutive, respectively. The data offered are usually constructions with nahi izan 'to want' and behar izan 'to need', as in (47) and (48):

24

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

(47)

Paris-a joan nahi/behar duzua? Paris-to go want/need aux-Q Do you want/need to go to Paris?

(48)

Lagun-a Paris-a eraman nahi/behar duzu friend-A Paris-to take want/need aux You want/have to take your friend to Paris

Here nahi/behar appear with participial subordinate clauses without an overt argument: in (47), with embedded intransitive verbs, the gap corresponds to a IS. In (48), with the transitive verb eraman 'to take', the missing argument controlled by the matrix argument is a TS. Since the gap whose referent must be coreferential with a matrix argument is always TS/IS but never TO, it is concluded that the language shows 'syntactic' accusativity. The argument is considerably weakened, however, when one considers that ergative languages in general show an accusative patterning in these types of constructions, regardless of their actual degree of syntactic ergativity as measured by other parameters. Dixon (1979:115) has claimed that must, can, begin, finish, try form a modal-like class of elements modifying lexical verbs that universally require identity with the subject of the verb they modify. In fact, in many languages these meanings are realized not as independent verbs but as derivational affixes on the lexical verb. Thus, in Basque can is expressed both by an auxiliary verb or by the potential affix ke in the inflected verb. This fact has led Dixon to postulate a universal semantic category of 'subject' which these constructions always refer to regardless of ergativity.13 While a verb like want may not behave in this way, the apparent universality of controlled 'subject' (TS/IS) pattern for the other verbs greatly decreases their criterial validity in measuring ergativity. As for the actual Basque data, the facts seem to indicate that there is in fact no controlled PRO in this construction, at least at the S-structure level. In the remainder of this section, I will show that nahi/behar can behave both as nouns and as verbs. As verbs, they undergo a restructuring rule forming one single complex verbal unit with the embedded participial verb in their complement clause. The resulting structure is then monoclausal. There is one single verb in (47) and (48), and therefore no controlled PRO in any 'embedded' clause at S-structure. The argument for the accusativity of these Basque structures must be shifted then to a level prior to the application of the restructuring rule. For ease of presentation, I will for the most part use examples with nahi. Behar 'need', unless otherwise noted, behaves in the same fashion. As stated above, nahi is an independent noun meaning 'desire'. Many

Ergativity in Basque

25

of the morphological and syntactic characteristics of nahi constructions can be explained with reference to this fact. For example, in periphrastic verbal expressions, where the verb is conjugated with the help of an auxiliary, the main verb conveys only lexical meaning and aspectual information. It can appear in four shapes: 1. 2. 3. 4.

In its radical form without the participial -i, -tu and -n endings, in non-indicative moods: ikus dezan 'so that he sees', for a verb like ikusi 'to see' in the subjunctive. In participial form for perfectives: ikus-i dut 'I have seen'. In a nominalized form marked inesive (-ten) for habitual aspect: ikusten dut 'I see, I usually see'. With the genitive form of the participle for future: ikusi-ko dut 'I will see' (with locative genitive), or ikusi-ren dut 'I will see' (with possessive genitive, dialectal).

Since nahi is not a verb, but a noun, it cannot take on these aspectual endings (except as noted below), and the verb izan 'to be' has to be used to convey the ränge of aspectual reference described above. Thus, 2 through 4 above will be as follows: nahi izan dut 'I have wanted' (2); nahi izaten dut 'I usually want'(3); nahi izango dut 'I will want' (4). Where no auxiliary appears, the time reference is that of the 'auxiliary', actually the main verb: (49)

i. ii.

nahi d-u-t want 2>A-edun-\E I want nahi n-u-en lA-ei/w«-pst I wanted

Further evidence of the nominal character of these two elements is provided by cases where behar izan occurs with sentential complements but still does not appear in the absolutive indefinite case, but rather modified by actualizers or demonstratives (i, ii) or in the partitive case of D-objects (iii), i.e. case marked like any other noun: (50)

i. ii.

[Ohitu beharr-a] zue-la pentsatu zuen get used need-sA had-that think aux He thought that he had to get used to it Triste zen [goian ikusi behar hori] sad was up see need that It was sad that having to look up

26

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque iii. Ez duk jadanik [arnas-a hartu beharr-ik] neg have already breath-A take need-part You no longer have any need to take breath

These sentences can be easily analyzed as involving an independent noun behar which subcategorizes for sentential complements with verbs in their participial form. More evidence in this direction is provided by cases where both behar/nahi occur as independent arguments of lexical verbs, still taking sentential complements: (51)

[Zor zaio-n-a aitortu beharr-ean] aurkitzen naiz owe is-comp-A confess need-in find aux I find myself in the need of confessing what is owed to him

(52)

[Erabaki nahi-ean] saiatzen decide want-in try She tried to want to decide

zen aux

Again, here both nouns appear with participial complements as in the previous examples. There are other data, however, that indicate that nahi behaves as a verb in some constructions, and that a process of syntactic reanalysis of this verb with the embedded participle takes place, forming one single verbal unit, similar to cases of Restrutturazione in Italian described in Rizzi (1981). If so, in (47) and (48) there would not be any 'controlled' argument, since they are uniclausal sentences, and the test for accusativity has to be based on different features of the construction. The evidence that nahi/behar can also be verbal elements is both syntactic and morphological. Morphologically, both verbs may in some dialects take on the genitive case to indicate future reference without making use of the auxiliary izan and behaving therefore as participles like ikusi in the examples above.14 Thus, we can have both behar izango and beharko, and nahi izango and nahiko with dialectal variation as to their use, the future with -ko and without izan being well attested since the earliest western texts. Behar seems to be more widespread in this usage, but both are well attested. Since they are originally nouns, they can take the genitive case ending that participles take for future, but habitual aspect still requires the auxiliary izaten, since nouns do not take on the nominalizing affix te which verbal roots take for habitual tenses, as described in 3 above. At the syntactic level, evidence for a verbal analysis of these constructions comes from sentences of the following type:

Ergativity in Basque (53)

i. ii.

27

Hire helbide-a nahi d-u-t 3A-eA-p\-edun-\¥. I want the latest issues

In (i) there are two absolutive nouns that might correspond to the absolutive marker d- on the auxiliary: helbidea and nahi. However, as (ii) shows, the agreement marker on the verb cross-references the former, since this is the only plural absolutive in the sentence and the verb is marked for plural absolutive. This indicates that nahi is no longer a functional noun phrase, but rather a regular verb conjugated periphrastically with *edun, like other Basque verbs. Another piece of evidence is supplied by the position of focused and interrogative words. These have to appear in a position immediately preceding the verb in affirmative sentences. For both sentences in (53), the interrogative word has to be placed before nahi as shown in (54) and (55): (54) (55)

Zer nahi duzu? what(A) aux What do you want? *Zer duzu nahi?

If nahi is here a verb, the data are explained: the interrogative word immediately precedes a verb, not a noun. To review the discussion of nahi up to this point, I have claimed that this noun can subcategorize for participial complements and can also be analyzed as a verb when it occurs without any case marking conjugated with the help of an auxiliary. The evidence for this type of analysis comes form a) morphological word formation that treats nahi as a verbal base, b) agreement of the new object (rather than the noun nahi itself) in the auxiliary and c) focus (= pre-verbal) position preceding the 'noun' rather than the verb izan. Notice that in cases where nahi appears case marked, we are assuming that we are simply dealing with the noun. In fact, we can assume that the lexical entry of nahi is categorially marked as V or N. However, there is evidence that some syntactic restructuring process might be operating in one particular context: uninfected nahi with sentential complements. Remember that, as a noun, nahi can subcategorize for participial complements. As a verb, on the other hand, it subcategorizes

28

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

for both nominal and sentential complements. Sentential complements present different shapes (participial, nominalized or subjunctive) according to whether both matrix and complement share the 'subject' TS/IS. I will first present the different types of complementation and I will turn later to show that one such type, namely, participial like-subject complementation, involves syntactic restructuring. In like-subject subordination, we find embedded participial complements like the ones discussed at the beginning of this section (47-48), usually ending in -tu, -i or -n. We will be concerned with these below. Notice that, although I will claim that participial subordinate clauses do not involve any controlled argument at S-structure and, therefore, their status as evidence for accusativity has to be restated, the subordination types do hinge on the notion unlike/ like 'subject'. Thus, where both TS and IS of the embedded clause have a different referent, participial complements are not possible. Instead, tensed complements in the subjunctive or tenseless nominalized complements (with the nominalizing -t(z)e affix) occur. (56-7) gives the range of possible sentential complements depending on 'subject' referent: (56)

i.

ii. iii.

iv. v.

vi.

(57)

i.

*Jon-ek; [PROj kazeta irakurr-i] nahi du John-E newspaper read-perf aux John wants somebody to read the newspaper Jon-eki [PROi kazeta irakurri] nahi du John wants (*somebody) to read the newspaper * Jon-eki [PROi kazeta irakur-tze-a] nahi du read-nom-A John wants to read the newspaper Jon-eki [PROj kazeta irakurtzea] nahi du John wants people to read the newspaper * Jon-eki [proj kazeta irakur dezan] nahi du read aux-sub John wants to read the newspaper Jon-eki [proj kazeta irakur dezan] nahi du Johni wants (that) hej read the newspaper

* Jon-eki [bera-kj kazeta irakurri] nahi du he read-perf John wants him to read the newspaper ii. * Jon-eki [beraki kazeta irakurri] nahi du John wants to read the newspaper iii. * Jon-eki [beraki kazeta irakur-tze-a] nahi du read-nom-A John wants to read the newspaper iv. Jon-eki [berakj kazeta irakurtzea] nahi du John wants him to read the newspaper

Ergativity in Basque

29

v. *Jon-eki [beraki kazeta irakur dezan] nahi du read aux(sub) John wants (that he himself) to read the newspaper vi. Jon-ek, [berakj kazeta irakur dezan] nahi du John wants him to read the newspaper (56) gives the three types of complements (participial, nominalized and subjunctive) embedded with like and unlike TS's in matrix and subordinate clauses, where the latter's TS is an empty pronominal element (PRO or pro). Whether the pronominal is PRO or pro depends on the presence of AGR, which is present only in subjunctive complements. We find a clear complementary distribution: in participial complements, coreferential TS's are possible and non-coreferential ones excluded; in nominalized and subjunctive complements, non-coreferential TS's are possible and coreferential ones excluded. The same pattern can be observed in (57), with the only difference that participial complements are not possible at all unless PRO occurs, as will be explained immediately. Another difference between (57) and (56) is that, as R. de Rijk points out, (p.c.), (57iii,v) are not downright ungrammatical, but, rather, semantically marked, possible in highly contrastive contexts. At this point, what is relevant to accusativity is that whether one type of complement or the other appears depends on the coreferentiality of matrix TS and embedded TS (or IS), but not TO. The previous examples involved subordinate transitive verbs, but the same set of sentences can be shown to have the same properties with intransitive verbs. (58) below gives three sentences with the only interpretations they can have: (58)

i.

[Amaitu arte egon g-a-it-ez-en] nahi du bera-k finish till be aux-sub wants aux he-E He wants us to remain until we finish ii. [Amaitu arte ego-te-a] nahi du berak be-nom-A He wants (me, you, him...) to stay until I, you... finish iii. [Amaitu arte egon] nahi du berak be-perf He wants to stay until he finishes

While this type of argument for the accusativity of these constructions can be built on the basis of the grammatical function of the arguments whose coreferentiality governs the choice of complement type, it cannot be built on whether PRO in participial complements is TS or IS as opposed to TO, as has usually been done. The reason is that there is evidence that the structure in (58iii) is not the correct one for these complements,

30

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

although it might be so for the remaining two complement types. This evidence is supplied by focus and agreement facts, where the participle forms a single verbal unit with nahi. With respect to inflection agreement, this is strictly local in Basque: only arguments within the same clause as AGR will be coindexed with a feature specification in it. However, in the type of sentence under consideration, any dative or absolutive argument in what seems to be the embedded clause has to be marked in the inflection of the matrix clause, as shown in the following sentences: (59)

Azken ale-ak irakurr-i nahi d-it-u bera-k last issue-pA read-perf want 3A-p\-edun he-E He wants to read the latest issues

(60)

Neska-ri ekutitz-ak bidali nahi d-izk-i-o-t girl-D letter-pA send want 3A-pl-dat-3A-lE I want to send some letters to the girl

In (59) the plural absolutive object of irakurri shows up in the matrix auxiliary agreement marker for third person plural absolutive. In (60) both absolutive plural and dative arguments in the embedded clause are equally marked in the superordinate auxiliary by -izk- and -io respectively. Contrast (59)-(60) with parallel cases where the same verb appears not with participles, but with subjunctive and nominalized complements including a dative nominal which cannot be reflected on the matrix inflection: (61)

*[Jon-ek Miren-i eskutitz-a bidal-tze-a] nahi d-i-o-t John-E Mary-D letter-A send-nom-Awant 3A-dat-3D-lE I want John to send a letter to Mary

(62)

*[Jonek Mireni eskutitza bidal diezaion] nahi d-i-o-t aux-sub 3A-dat-3D-lE I want John to send a letter to May

Here, any marker in the matrix clause referencing the dative argument of the complement clause produces an ungrammatical sentence. If [participle nahi] is reanalyzed as one single complex verbal unit, D-arguments of the participial verb would also be arguments of the complex verb and therefore would trigger local person agreement on the auxiliary. There would not be in that case any PRO subject in (56i,ii) or (57i,ii), but one single subject Jonek for one single clause. Then, (63(=60)) would be represented as (64) after Reanalysis has applied:

Ergativity in Basque

31

(63)

S(=I") NP

I'

nik

NP^ |

[ w

J*

a

n

t

PRO

I

neskari to girl

I

I

eskutitzak letters

(64)

bidali send

S(=I") NP

I'

nik NP neskari to girl

VP

I

NP eskutitzak letters

V V j bidali send

V | nahi want

Further evidence for reanalysis is provided by Focus-related data. Focalization will be discussed in Chapter Four. Here, it suffices to remember

32

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

the descriptive generalization that focused constituents and interrogative elements must be placed in immediate preverbal position. This applies to matrix as well as embedded declarative clauses. The reanalysis hypothesis predicts that wh-words for arguments in the matrix clause may appear in the preverbal position with respect to the [V V] unit. This is not expected in other hypotheses, since although, as we will discuss in Chapter Four, wh-movement from 'lower' to 'upper' clauses is possible, 'downward' movement is not so either in Basque or in other languages with respect to COMP-to-COMP movement. Since the complex verbal unit contains two verbs, it is also possible for the focused word to occur immediately preceding either of the two V's that form it. This is in fact the situation we find in Basque: wh-words which are arguments of any of the two Dstructure clauses may appear in front of the [V V] element, and, more markedly, in front of the second V, as shown in (65) and (66): (65)

Nor-k nahi du ni-rekin etorri? who-E want aux I-with come Who wants to come with me?

(66)

Zer irakurri nahi duzu? what(A) read want aux What do you want to read?

In (65) nork 'who' is placed before the verb nahi, and in (66) zer 'what' occurs before what we identified initially as the subordinate verb. (65) is more naturally expressed as (67), that is, the reanalyzed version with both verbs adjacent: (67)

Nork etorri nahi du nirekin?

Again, here it seems that the interrogative element corresponding to the subject of the matrix clause appears in the focus position of the embedded clause. While unexplained if the structure of (67) is a control one like (63), it follows directly from the reanalysis structure in (64). Furthermore, sentences like (67) show some peculiar restrictions: where the interrogative word occurs immediately preceding the participle, the latter has to be adjacent to the matrix verb: (68)

i. *Nor-k irakurri beste liburu bat nahi du? who-E read other book one want aux Who wants to read another book? ii. Nork irakurri nahi du beste liburu bat?

Ergativity in Basque (69)

33

i. *Nor-ekin hitz egin atzo behar zenuen? who-with word do yesterday need aux Who did you have to talk to yesterday ii. Norekin hitz egin behar zenuen atzo?

The data can be easily accounted for by the reanalysis hypothesis: if there is one complex verb, the focus position after reanalysis is the position immediately preceding the participle, that is, the [V V] unit. The requirement that nahi and the participle are not separated is also expected: adjacency is a common requirement for cases of reanalysis described in the literature. For a matrix interrogative to occur before the 'embedded' participle, a reanalysis process has to occur, since, as explained above, movement 'down' to an embedded clause is not possible in the theory due to Binding principles, which require traces to be c-commanded by their antecedents. As the examples in (68-69) show, reanalysis is obligatory whenever the focus position is that immediately preceding the participle: an argument of the embedded clause cannot occur before the embedded participle if this is not adjacent to the matrix verb. As a marked option, some dialects seem to allow breaking the [V V] unit for focus purposes, but even in those cases, acceptability or naturalness seems to decrease depending on the presence of any other constituent between the two verbs: (70)

i.

Nor-k [irakurri nahi] ditu nire ipuin-ak? who-E read want aux my tale-pA Who wants to read my stories? ii. Nork [nahi ditu irakurri] nire ipuinak? iii. ?Nork nahi ditu nire ipuinak irakurri?

(71)

i.

Nor-ekin hitz egin nahi duzu? who-with word do want aux Who do you want to talk to? ii. Norekin nahi duzu hitz egin? iii. ?Nor-i nahi diozu liburu-a eman? who-D want aux book-sA give Who do you want to give the book to?

A third piece of evidence for reanalysis comes from some dialectal developments. In the standard dialect nahi/behar appear with the transitive auxiliary, regardless of the transitive or intransitive character of the 'embedded' participial verb. In some dialects, however, behar has been completely absorbed into the verbal unit, losing its ability to subcategorize for transitive auxiliary. The auxiliary will then be the one subcategorized for by the participle: if this is intransitive, izan will appear, and if it is

34

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

transitive, *edun. A verb like etorri 'to come' will then occur with izan: (72)

Zu-rekin etorri behar n-a-iz you-with come need lA-prs-izan I have to come with you

This instance of reanalysis, as other cases in the literature, involves Dstructure PRO TS or IS, and an adjacency requirement. Reanalysis, as shown in (63-64), eliminates sentential boundaries and the embedded PRO argument. After reanalysis, the focus position is defined by the V dominating both adjoined V's. PRO, required at D-structure as subject of the participle by the Extended Projection Principle, is eliminated in the process, and there is only one single subject after reanalysis, hence the like-subject requirement.15 Remember that reanalysis can only occur with verbal (uninfected) nahi/behar, not with their nominal counterparts. This explains why (73i), with the case-marked noun beharra 'the need' is ungrammatical, while the same sentence with uninfected ( = verbal) behar is grammatical: (73)

i. *Mikel-i eman beharr-a d-io-t Michael-D give need-sA 3A-3D-1E I have to give it to Michael ii. Mikel-i eman behar diot

Mikeli is a dative argument of the only clause in (ii), but it is an argument of the complement of the noun in (i) and cannot be marked in the matrix auxiliary. The crucial point to stress in the present context is the accusative character of the reanalysis phenomenon: participial complementation with these verbs is only possible where there is a PRO corresponding to the 'subject' argument of the participle, that is, to its TS or IS, but not to its TO. 16

1.3 THE ERGATIVE HYPOTHESIS

In the previous section I have shown that Basque is a syntactically accusative language. Before turning to a reanalysis of the morphological data, this section introduces a small digression to show that Basque is not 'ergative' in the particular sense proposed by Marantz (1984). Marantz attempts to characterize ergative languages based on the type of semantic roles assigned by the verb and predicate. Given the basic agent and patient/ theme semantic roles, we have two logical possibilities with respect to their assignment to the basic syntactic constituents subject and object: in nominative-accusative languages the verb assigns patient 0-role to the

35

Ergativity in Basque

object, and the subject is assigned the agent role by the whole predicate. Inversely, in 'ergative' languages, the verb would assign agent semantic role to its object and the subject would be assigned patient/theme role by the predicate. This is the Ergative Hypothesis (EH). Since agent nominals are marked ergative in these languages, the ergative nominal in a transitive clause would be the object argument, and the absolutive nominal the subject argument. Under this analysis, the grammatical relation subject/object would have a direct correlate in morphological case as absolutive/ergative in ergative languages and as nominative/ accusative in accusative languages. The EH is formulated as a hypothesis not on case marking, but on semantic 0-roles. However, up to now the only clear common criterial feature for ergativity has been precisely the existence of ergative case marking, there being no conclusive semantic or syntactic correlations (although see next section for the case of Basque and Georgian). As it turns out, many languages traditionally considered as typically ergative, like Greenlandic Eskimo and Basque, can be shown to assign semantic roles in the same way as nominative-accusative languages do, giving rise to a four way typology of languages according to whether they are 'ergative' in Marantz's semantic-role sense, and/or ergative in the traditional casemarking sense. (74) schematizes the typology created by these two parameters: (74)

i.

[ + ergative [ + ergative ii. [ + ergative [-ergative iii. [-ergative [ + ergative iv. [-ergative [-ergative

role case role case role case role case

assignment] marking] assignment] marking] assignment] marking] assignment] marking]

No examples Dyirbal, Arctic Eskimo Greenlandic Eskimo, Basque Russian, English

The languages in (74ii) are considered [-ergative] in their case assignment system because the absolutive in a transitive clause is analized as the subject in an EH 'ergative' language. The fact that Marantz's ergative parameter cuts across both ergative and accusative languages (in their traditional morphologically based classification), suggests that the term 'ergative' hypothesis is a misnomer and that the type of semantic role assignment generalizations it tries to capture, if real at all, is logically independent from whatever it is morphological ergativity represents, as Marantz himself notes. Moreover, the set of phenomena described as split ergativity would be left unexplained by the EH, even though ergativity and split ergativity are intimately connected. In what follows, I'll try to show that Basque is not 'ergative' in the EH sense. This is important, since the languages

36

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

that have been described as choosing an 'ergative' semantic role assignment system have been morphologically ergative languages, even though in principle semantic role assignment and case marking are independent factors. 1.3.1 Control Structures Controlled PRO is the anaphoric pronoun occurring in the subject position of some embedded clauses. Within Marantz's system, this PRO acts as a place holder in subject position at the logico-semantic representation, required by the principle licensing predicates only if predicated of a subject, forming then a proposition. It is also the subject of his 's(yntactic) structure'. For an 'ergative' language, the prediction is that this PRO will receive the patient/theme semantic role assigned by transitive verbs to their subjects in these languages. As discussed in section 1.2.1 above, tenseless embedded wh-questions appear with the participial form of the verb and an obligatory gap for the subject argument: (75)

i.

ii.

(Haieki) ez dakite [ PROi isilune hau nola ebaki] they neg know silence this how cut (They) don't know how to break this long silence Esan dio (ha-rii) [PRO, zer egin] say aux he-D what do (He) has told him what to do

In all of these cases, the gap in the embedded clause which we identify here as PRO receives the agent semantic role of the verb subcategorization frame, as shown in the glosses. This indicates that the subject involved in these constructions both in the GB framework and in Marantz's own one receives the agent 0-role in transitive clauses in Basque, and hence role assignment is not 'ergative' in the EH sense. 1.3.2 Reflexive-passive

homophony

In Marantz's framework, both reflexive and passive verb forms are characterized as involving the same set of features [-logical subject] and [-transitive], roughly equivalent, as Levin (1983) points out, to Burzio's (1981) [-Theme] (subject 0-role) and [-Accusative] (object case) features, respectively. Marantz claims that since both verb forms are syntactically parallel, this correctly predicts the often pointed out homophony of the morphological mechanisms involved in marking them in languages like Albanian, Spanish, Dyirbal, Lardil, Eskimo, etc. In an accusative language where the object is the patient /theme argument, passive will make it subject

Ergativity in Basque

37

and therefore the homophony will involve pairs like 'He has been seen - He saw himself. In an 'ergative' language like Arctic Eskimo, where the object carries the agent semantic role, passive will eliminate the patient subject and the agent will be the subject of an objectless clause. 'He saw himself is predicted to be homophonous with lHe saw (something unspecified)'. Basque may use intransitivization of a transitive verb to indicate some types of reflexives and impersonal passives, patterning it in this respect with other 'accusative' languages. Reflexivization in Basque is normally expressed by a variable noun phrase of the form 'X's head', where X is a possessive bound by the antecedent of the reflexive phrase. As in other languages exploiting this strategy, the verb will be transitive if the reflexive phrase occupies the object position. The reflexive triggers third person agreement on the verb. (76) shows an example in Georgian (Harris 1981) and (77) shows some reflexives of this type in Basque, with different sorts of antecedent-reflexive relational possibilities: (76)

Cems tavs vakeb my head-D I-praise-him I praise myself

(77)

i.

ii.

Langile gorbatadun-ek ez dute beren buru-a worker blue-collar-E neg aux their head-A langile-tzat hartzen worker-as take Blue collar workers don't consider themselves workers Nere buru-ari (ni) nazkagarri natzaio my head-D I disgusting aux I am disgusting to myself

There is another strategy (common with certain verbs and less standard with others) which simply eliminates object reflexives and detransitivizes the verb. The subject (and logical antecedent) will be marked absolutive, as subject of an intransitive clause. The auxiliary is then izan, rather than *edun. Levin (1983) mentions bodily care verbs like jantzi 'to dress' as utilizing this strategy, but in colloquial speech many other verbs are used in this way, finding their way into the literature. (78) shows a transitive sentence with ikusi 'to see' and its two reflexive forms, and other cases are shown in (79). All of the examples in the detransitivizing strategy are taken from modern literature:17

38 (78)

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque i. ii.

(79)

i. ii.

Ihesle-ak polizia ikusiko du fugitive-E police-A see aux-*edun The fugitive will see the police a) Ihesle-ak bere buru-a inguratua ikusiko du his head-A surrounded see aux-*edun The fugitive will see himself surrounded b) Ihesle-a inguratua ikusiko da -A aux-izan The fugitive will see himself surrounded Ogi bila joateko eskaini nintzen (ni) bread search go offer aux-izan I-A I offered (myself) to go for bread Alargun-a beltzez jantzi zen widow-A black dress aux-izan The widow dressed (herself) in black

Detransitivization is also the strategy found for expressing impersonal clauses. Although a third person human agent is understood, these clauses contain a single object argument which is assigned the patient semantic role. Compare the personal active with its impersonal passive counterpart in the following examples: (80)

i. ii.

(81)

i. ii.

Baserritarr-ek merkatu-an saltzen dituzte barazki-ak peasant-E market-at sell aux-*edun vegetable-A Peasants sell their vegetables at the market Barazki-ak merkatuan saltzen dira aux-izan Vegetables are sold at the market Ikusle-ek zentzugabeko historio-ak ikusiko dituzte viewer-E nonsense story-A see aux-*edun The viewers will see stupid stories Halako historio-ak telebista-n ere ez dira ikusiko such story-A T.V.-on neg aux-izan see Such stories won't be seen even on T.V.

Thus, (78ii,b) may also be interpreted in the passive sense as 'the fugitive will be seen'. This type of homophony is predicted for accusative languages by Marantz's system, showing again the non-'ergative' type of Basque semantic role assignment. This accusative type of homophony is found both in morphologically non-ergative languages like Spanish, where the reflexive clitic se is used for impersonal passives, and in ergative languages

Ergativity in Basque

39

like Greenlandic Eskimo (Woodbury (1977) and Fortescue (1984)), where detransitivization can also convey both meanings. This is contrasted, in Marantz's analysis, with the 'ergative' homophony between reflexive and indefinite object deletion verbs found in a language like Central Arctic Eskimo, where the detransitivized verb can be reflexive (if the reflexive pronoun in an oblique comitative case appears) or interpreted as including an unspecified third person patient/theme: (82)

i. ii.

angut ingmi-nik taku-vuq man-A himself-COM see-IND3sg The man sees himself angut takuvuq The man sees (something)

In contrast to this pattern, Basque indefinite object deletion is made by eliminating the object argument, but retaining the absolutive third person marker in the auxiliary *edun: (83)

Itsu hon-ek inork baino hobeto ikusten du blind this-E nobody than better see aux-*edun This blind man sees better than anybody

In 3.3.2, I will offer an analysis of 'impersonal passive' and intransitive reflexive sentences in Basque. Here it is enough to point out that 0-role assignment in Basque works in the same way as in accusative languages in Marantz's sense, assigning agent to transitive subjects and patient to transitive objects. In the previous sections, I have tried to supply some evidence for subjecthood and objecthood in a morphologically ergative language like Basque, and in this section I have shown that Basque does not show any '0-role ergativity' of the type Marantz has hypothesized might exist in some languages. In the following section I will concentrate on Case assignment in monadic predicates (unergatives and unaccusatives) and its syntactic repercussions for the analysis of Basque phrase structure.

1.4 UNACCUSATIVITY IN BASQUE

In section 1.2, I have presented some data showing that despite morphological identity, TO and IS arguments do not pattern as a single class for syntactic purposes. Rather, IS patterns with TS despite different casemarking. This leads us to conclude that morphological ergativity has no relevance in the syntactic organization of Basque, which can be claimed to be based on accusative grammatical relations like object and subject.

40

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

However, there is at least one case, namely, partitive constructions, where TO and IS arguments pattern together as opposed to TS. Following Levin's (1983) analysis, I will try to show that this type of data do not entail any degree of ergativity in Basque syntax, but that they can be instead fully accounted for on the hypothesis that Basque grammar contains a set of unaccusative verbs which coincides with those taking the izan intransitive auxiliary. If this is the case, then partitive constructions can be easily explained on purely accusative grounds. After providing a general background introduction to the Unaccusative Hypothesis (UH), I will present a discussion of partitive constructions, showing how the UH can explain their particular distribution. This section also takes up the topic of the relevance of the /zan-unaccusative identification for a reinterpretation of Basque morphological ergativity in terms of 'extended ergative' (rather than 'ergative') linguistic type. I will propose a slightly modified case marking system at S-structure which accounts for the seemingly ergative morphology observed in the previous sections. 1.4.1 Semantic unaccusativity in Basque In the Unaccusative Hypothesis put forward by Perlmutter (1978), the intransitive class of verbs is subdivided into an unergative and an unaccusative one. Based on evidence from impersonal passives, Perlmutter claimed that an unaccusative stratum in a relational network contains an object 2-arc but no subject 1-arc, while the unergative stratum would include a 1-arc but no 2-arc. Independent principles like the Final-1 Law, that requires the presence of a subject at a certain level, will force the advancement of the 2-nominal in the unaccusative stratum to the derived subject relation. Thus, the single subject argument of intransitive verbs may actually be the reflection of both a deep subject and a deep object. 'Intransitive' would then be a cover term for a non-homogeneous class of predicates. Burzio (1981) incorporates Perlmutter's unaccusative hypothesis into the GB framework I'll be following in this study. His 'ergative' ( = unaccusative) verbs' only argument appears as the object in underlying representation, and the verb assigns its 9-role to the D-structure object, but does not assign, by itself or compositionally with the object, any 8role to the subject position. Burzio claims that assignment of 0-role to the subject and assignment of accusative case to the object are verbal lexical properties united by the following implicational relation, where T stands for 0-role assignment to the subject and A for Accusative case assignment to the object: (84)

[-T]
[-A]

Ergativity in Basque

41

If the verb cannot assign 0-role to its subject, it cannot assign accusative case to its object either. Thus, unless another case-assigning mechanism is available, the object of unaccusative verbs will not be able to receive case from the verb, since unaccusative verbs do not assign 0-role to their subject nor do they assign case to their objects. In Italian and Spanish, pro can occupy the subject position, since it is identified by INFL, and in an unaccusative structure, coindexing with pro in subject position will enable the D-object to get the nominative case assigned by I(NFL) to the chain headed by pro. Otherwise, the D-object will have to move to subject position to receive case and become visible for G-role assignment, or to survive the Case Filter. Movement to this position is possible, since it is a non 0-position. Case is assigned directly under government from I. Certain syntactic processes apply both to the object of transitive verbs and to the surface subject of unaccusative verbs, but not to the surface subject of unergative verbs. This is for instance the case of ne-cliticization in Italian. The clitic ne can correspond to object nominals of transitive verbs as in (85): (85)

a. b.

Maria Mary Maria Maria

ha letto molti libri has read many books ne ha letti molti has read many of them

TVe-cliticization can also occur with the subject of an intransitive verb like arrivare 'to arrive', but not with the subject of another intransitive verb like telefonare 'to telephone', as shown in the following examples: (86)

a. b.

(87)

Arrivano molti studenti Many students arrived Ne arrivano molti Many of them arrived

a.

Telefonano molti studenti Many students telephoned b. *Ne telefonano molti Many of them telephoned

If arrivare is an unaccusative verb in Italian, assigning 0-role to a single D-structure object argument, while telefonare is an intransitive unergative verb with a D-structure subject argument, the generalization describing where ne-cliticization can occur can be simply stated as being restricted to deep objects. Thus, the argument of arrivare but not the argument of telefonare can be cliticized by ne, even though both are subject at the

42

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

S-structure level. Other syntactic properties which discriminate between two different subtypes of 'intransitive' verbs have been observed in Dutch (Perlmutter 1978) and Russian 'genitive objects' (Pesetsky 1982). Membership in the unaccusative or unergative class of verbs seems to hinge on semantic factors. Intransitive verbs whose only argument is semantically agent would typically belong to the unergative class (although involuntary bodily processes also seem to be included in this class). Some of the verbs that Perlmutter includes in this group are: a) Willed or volitional act predicates like work, smile, think, swim, hunt, cry, genuflect, whistle, laugh, dance, whisper, mumble, growl, bark, chirp, etc.; b) Involuntary bodily processes like cough, sneeze, hiccough, etc. Unaccusative verbs are more difficult to characterize than unergative ones. The verbal argument usually corresponds to a semantic patient or experiencer, and the predicate refers to changes of state or position as shown in the following subgroups: a) Deadjectival predicates like redden, shorten, etc.; b) Change of state or position predicates like burn, fall, dangle, dry, inchoative verbs, etc.; c) Predicates of existing and happening like exist, happen, etc.; d) Aspectual predicates like begin, stop, etc.; e) Duratives like last, stay, remain etc. Perlmutter also includes in the unaccusative set those predicates indicating non-voluntary emission of stimuli that impinge on the senses like shine, glow, sparkle, stink, etc. We will observe later that such predicates behave like unergative predicates in Basque. Although the motivation for the UH is mainly syntactic, the basic distinction between the two intransitive types runs along semantic lines, as can be seen in the preceding lists. Levin (1983) notices that 'intransitive' verbs in Basque, that is, all verbs selecting the intransitive auxiliary izan 'to be', appear to be semantically unaccusative verbs. The generalization she proposes is that if a verb selects an izan auxiliary, then it will have a single object patient argument at D-structure. It should be noticed that it is not implied that there is a strict one-to-one correlation between semantically unergative verbs and the transitive *edun auxiliary on one hand and semantically unaccusative verbs and the izan auxiliary on the other. Semantic unaccusativity does not necessarily entail usage of the 'intransitive' izan auxiliary. There are some unaccusative verbs which are also conjugated with the transitive auxiliary. One such verb is sufritu 'to suffer' or iraun 'to last', which selects a transitive *edun auxiliary including a non-referential third person singular absolutive marker d- as in (88): (88)

Etxe-ak zutik iraun-go d-u house-E on foot last-fut 3A-edun-(3E) The house will last

Ergativity in Basque

43

Similarly, 'emission of stimuli' predicates in Basque are usually conjugated with transitive auxiliaries. It is only the opposite that is predicted to be the case: if a verb requires the intransitive izan auxiliary, it must be a patient argument verb.18 According to Levin, Basque verbs selecting the izan auxiliary have all semantically patient arguments. She identifies the following classes, which closely follow Perlmutter's unaccusative subgroups: (89)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Verbs of motion: joan 'to go', itzuli 'to return', irten 'to go out'... Verbs of change of state and position: ireki 'to open', erre 'to burn', hil 'to die', gorritu 'to redden'... Verbs of emotional reaction: harritu 'to be surprised', nahasi 'to be confused', haserratu 'to get upset'... Verbs of existence and occurrence: gertatu 'to happen', egon 'to be', agertu 'to appear'... Aspectual verbs: hasi 'to begin', bukatu 'to finish'... Other: ezkondu 'to get married', maitemindu 'to fall in love'...

Some of these classes typically include anti-causative usages of verbs which may also appear in transitive constructions (the ergative alternation, labile alternation in Russian linguistic literature): (90)

a. b.

(91)

a. b.

(92)

a. b.

Otso-ak ardi-a hil zuen wolf-E sheep-A kill aux(edun) The wolf killed the sheep Ardi-a hil zen die aux(i'zafl) The sheep died Zure proposamen-ak asko harritzen nau your proposal-E much surprises au\(ukan) Your proposal surprises me a great deal Asko harritu naiz aux(/za«) I have been much surprised Orkesta zuzendari-ak Bach-en lan-a hasi zuen orchestra conductor-E Bach's work-A begin a.ux(edun) The conductor began Bach's work Bachen lana orain hasi da now aux(izan) Bach's work has now begun

44

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

It is their single-argument usage that is being considered in this section. Thus, on one hand, semantically intransitive verbs selecting the auxiliary izan are always unaccusative predicates. Moreover, on the other hand, an examination of other intransitive verbs, especially of typically unergative ones like predicates describing volitional acts, manner-of-speaking and involuntary bodily processes shows that such predicates usually select a transitive auxiliary with both ergative and absolutive marking. Many of these verbs in Basque are lexically complex phrasal units formed by a [Noun egin] compound, where the noun appears in its absolutive indefinite form (0) and egin is the verb 'to do'. Some of these verbs are listed in (93): (93)

lan egin irri egin aide egin igeri egin negar egin hitz egin galde egin ihes egin oihu egin

'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to

work' laugh' leave' swim' cry' talk' ask' flee' shout'

In this case, auxiliary selection of the transitive auxiliary actually reflects the existence of an independent noun phrase (namely, the indefinite noun) co-indexed with the absolutive marking on the auxiliary. The [Noun egin] compound is not a fixed unit, but, rather, behaves as a regular verb-object group: a) The indefinite noun behaves like other absolutive nouns in that it can appear with the partitive case marking in certain environments: (94)

a. b.

Haurr-ak negar egin zuen egun osoa child-E cry do aux day whole The child cried the whole day Haurrak ez zuen negarr-ik egin neg cry-part do The child did not cry

b) The focus position in Basque is the immediately preverbal position. In sentences with this verb type, focused constituents (including interrogative wh-words) are placed immediately before the verb egin, rather than before the [Noun egin] unit:

Ergativity in Basque (95)

45

Nor-k egin zuen negar? who-E Who cried?

Nork occupies here the position preceding the verb egin. This is by far the most common pattern, although in a handful of cases the noun + egin syntactic compound seems to be in the process of being reinterpreted as a lexical compound, unanalyzable in syntactic terms. Thus, many speakers accept interrogative pronouns preceding the whole expression hitzegin 'to talk'. c) Causative forms of [Noun egin] verbs show 'transitive' auxiliary marking, in that the auxiliary includes ergative, absolutive and dative markers like causativized transitive verbs, rather than only the ergative and absolutive that appear for causativized intransitive verbs. It should be noticed that this set of verbs is not made up exclusively by semantically unergative predicates, although they make up the vast majority of egin verbs. Unaccusative and transitive verbs like the following can also be found: laprast egin 'to slip', porrot egin 'to go bunkrupt', agur egin 'to greet', etc.19 More interestingly, other semantically intransitive unergative verbs (Lafitte's (1979) 'deponent' verbs) also select the *edun auxiliary without having recourse to the dummy egin verb. Here, the auxiliary will contain a third person singular absolutive marker which does not represent any form of coindexing or agreement with any nominal in the clause:20 (96)

Makina hon-ek ondo funtzionatzen du machine this-E well function au\(edun) This machines works well

Some of these verbs also present a [Noun egin] equivalent, as shown in the following list:21 (97)

jokatu dimititu erausi etsi iraun irakin afaldu gosaldu kurritu argitu tardatu

'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to

play (cards)' resign' murmur' give up' last, to remain' boil (intr.)' have dinner' have breakfast' run' shine' take a long time'

46

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque jo funtzionatu iharduki ihardun dantzatu oihukatu borrokatu jolastu diztiratu

dantza egin oihu egin borroka egin jolas egin diztira egin

'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to 'to

go' work, function' quarrel' be occupied with' dance' shout' fight' play' shine'

Thus, it seems that the two classes of monadic predicates are kept separate by uniquely identifying the argument of semantically unaccusative verbs with the IS function. Unergative verb arguments, on the other hand, are treated as TS's. This is achieved both by decomposing these predicates into complex [Noun egin] phrases, hence actually treating them as particular cases of the two place predicate egin 'to do', or directly by requiring an obligatory dummy absolutive agreement index. The result in both cases is that what semantically seems to be the only argument of a monadic predicate appears as the ergative TS noun phrase of a verb selecting the transitive auxiliary. Although behaving like regular polyadic predicates, the monadic nature of these apparently transitive verbs is revealed in some constructions, like causatives. The causative suffix erazi is added to the verbal root in the lexicon. Thus, we find verbs like sartu 'to enter' and sarrerazi 'to cause to enter', eman 'to give' and emanerazi 'to cause to give', etc. The rearrangement of argument structure that erazi produces usually disregards the morphological fact of the presence of two apparent arguments for unergative verbs, affecting only the semantically present argument with its 0-role. Monadic predicate arguments, whether unaccusative or unergative, follow the same pattern. Grammatical relations between the causative and the non causative verbs vary following the familiar pattern described in the RG framework: subjects of causativized transitive verbs will appear as indirect objects, while transitive objects remain as surface objects. On the other hand, subjects of intransitives appear as surface direct object of the causative sentence.22 This pattern is shown in (98-99): (98)

a. b.

Entzule-ak berehala ixildu ziren listener-A immediately silence 3A-izan The listeners became silent immediately Hizlari-ak entzule-ak behehala ixil-erazi d-it-u speaker-E listener-A -cause 3A-pl-eift/n-(3E) The speaker hushed the listeners immediately

Ergativity in Basque (99)

a. b.

47

Azkenean ni-k ere zorr-ak pagatu d-it-u-t finally I-E too debt-A pay 3A-pl-e*/««-lE I have finally paid my debts Banku-ak (ni-ri) zorr-ak paga-erazi d-izk-it bank-E I-D debt-A -cause 3A-pl-lD-(3E) The bank has made me pay my debts

The causative verb always requires the transitive auxiliary. Whether it will include a dative marker or not depends on the number of arguments of the base verb: if it is monadic, the causative verb will have to assign only one case to its only complement, whereas if it is polyadic, like pagatu 'to pay', it will have to assign both absolutive and dative to its two complements. However, only the actual arguments of a verb are relevant here; morphologically dummy markers of 'transitive' monadic verbs not referring to any argument, like the one in a verb like iraun 'to last', may be ignored, as shown in (100): (100)

a. b.

Telesaio-ak bi ordu irauten d-u program-E two hour last 3A-ukan-(3E) The TV program lasts two hours Telesaio -a behar den bezala iraun-eraziko d-u-gu -A need is as -cause 3A-ukan-lE We will make the program last as much as needed

(Dative marking in causative objects corresponding to arguments of unergative verbs can also be found occasionally). In the [Noun egin] unergative verbal constructions, the nominal is not a dummy argument, but actually receives the theme role from egin 'to do' and as predicted shows up with a dative case mark in the causative auxiliary, since these complex expressions are polyadic verbs with the NP in D-object position. This is shown in sentence (101), with the verb ikara egin 'to shiver':23 (101)

Haren heriotze-aren berri-ak ikara eragin d-ie his death-of news-E shiver do(cause) 3A-3pD-(3E) The news of his death has made them shiver

Here the object argument ikara 'shiver' of egin remains the object argument of the causative verb eragin 'to cause to do'. I have shown that the class of semantically intransitive (i.e. one argument) predicates in Basque may have their logical argument in the ergative or in the absolutive case, with *edun or izan as auxiliaries, respectively. In view of the existence of both semantically unaccusative and unergative predicates taking the transitive auxiliary, it cannot be claimed that there

48

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

exists a one-to-one correlation between unaccusative predicatt/izan auxiliary on one hand and unergative predicate/*?*/«« auxiliary on the other. However, as claimed in Levin (1983), the izan class of verbs is homogeneously unaccusative, and this semantic fact does have syntactic repercussions, as observed in the following section. 1.4.2 Syntactic unaccusativity Levin proposes that izan-\erbs in Basque are both semantically and syntactically unaccusative, and hence subcategorize for a single D-object argument, along the lines of Burzio's analysis. Thus, monadic predicates conjugated with izan will be syntactically unaccusative verbs with a single D-object argument, while monadic predicates conjugated with *edun would be syntactically unergative verbs with a single D-subject argument. In fact, unaccusative D-objects do share some of the properties of transitive objects, as shown below. 1.4.2.1 Unaccusative arguments as objects: the partitive case The issue of unaccusativity is relevant to explain in accusative terms the data mentioned at the onset of section 1.4. Thus, in Basque partitives, TO and IS arguments seem to pattern together as a group, as opposed to TS. The partitive case marker -(r)ik in Basque can appear only on transitive object (102iii) or intransitive subject nominals (102iv), sharing the distributional properties of the absolutive case: like the latter, it cannot mark subject of transitives (102i) or of unergatives (102ii). We find the following cases: (102)

i. *Gizon-ik ez zuen saio-a ikusi man-part neg aux performance-A see No man saw the performance ii. *Makina-rik ez du funtzionatzen machine-part neg aux function No machine works iii. Ez nuen gizon-ik ikusi herri-ko kale-etan aux man-part see village-of street-in I didn't see any man in the streets of the village iv. Gizon-ik ez zen etorri man-part aux come No man came

Then the distribution of the partitive suffix seems to be sensitive to an ergative/absolutive distinction rather than a subject/object one, providing some evidence for syntactic ergativity in Basque. This might provide some

Ergativity in Basque

49

counterargument to the main claim of the present chapter, that is, the claim that the ergative/absolutive morphological distinction is not relevant in syntactic terms and that the universal notions subject/object are also operative in the grammar of Basque. Apparently, the partitive construction must be explained in ergative terms: partitive marking can correspond to arguments marked absolutive otherwise, but not to ergative arguments. On the other hand, however, the UH can explain the same facts in nonergative terms. Absolutive arguments in Basque correspond to D-objects, since both transitive objects and intransitive (izan) subjects are actually D-objects. Then the partitive suffix can appear on D-object arguments, that is, objects of transitive verbs and D-objects of izan unaccusative verbs. It is only D-subjects, corresponding to ergative arguments, that cannot be marked partitive. The relevant notion is again 'subject/object'. Partitive constructions will be dealt with more extensively in 2.2.2.3.24 1.4.2.2 Unaccusativity and ergativity: Basque as an extended ergative language An interesting property of the UH analysis of Basque predicates is that it enables us to define a one-to-one correlation between the grammatical function of core arguments at the level which represents directly the 0role structure of predicates (D-structure) and the case corresponding to those arguments at S-structure in an ergative morphology. Thus, unaccusative objects become intransitive subjects assigned absolutive in the same way as transitive objects remaining in object position, while all (and only) D-subjects are assigned ergative. The correlation can be stated directly between GF at D-structure and case: D-objects are assigned absolutive and D-subjects ergative. At this level, this is not an ergative pattern but, as Levin points out, an accusative one, although, in fact, it represents an instance of Dixon's 'extended ergative' type mentioned before: an accusative system where the 'subject' is morphologically marked by a certain ending (ergative), while the object is morphologically unmarked (0 marking). The situation is strikingly similar to the one found in Georgian, another language usually considered ergative. Harris (1981) has shown that in the limited contexts where 'ergativity' is manifested (Series II tenses: aorist and desiderative), the ergative-subject pattern occurs not only with transitive verbs, but also with unergative ones. The absolutive ('nominative' in Kartvelian linguistics) is restricted to intransitive (unaccusative) verbs, along with certain derivational types like passives and inceptives. From a typological point of view, Harris points out, this system is not an ergative one, but rather an active system of the type associated with Norh Amerindian languages. Thus, while in both ergative and accusative languages the basic distinction is between one and two place predicates (intransitives and transitives), in the active system the distinction is beween 'active'

50

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

and 'inactive' predicates. In active languages like Dakota (Boas and Deloria 1941), we also find at first glance the formal identity between object of active verb/subject of static (inactive) marker versus subject of active, as observed in the forms ya-t'i 'Thou dwellest', ni-sic'a 'Thou are bad' and ni-kte' 'He kills thee', where ya is the second person active suffix, while ni is the inactive subject and object marker. However, it is not (in)transitivity that determines the set of affixes, but 'activity', where active verbs 'include terms that relate exclusively to animate beings, either as actors or as objects acted upon, such as words of going and coming, sounds uttered by animals and man, mental activities and those expressing actions that can affect only living beings' (Boas and Deloria 1941:1). Notice that some of these classes are typically unergative predicate types in other languages. Adjectives and 'verbs that result in a state' are inactive predicates in Dakota. Class membership into the active or inactive/stative sets varies from language to language. The relevance of the animate/inanimate distinction is another important feature of these languages. Thus, in Ojibwa (Bloomfield 1957), each verbal stem specializes for animate or inanimate arguments: penkissin 'he falls' but penkmin 'it falls', for animate and inanimate beings, respectively. While the 'ergativity' of languages like Basque and Georgian resembles the 'active' type in its division of predicates into two sets which do not exactly correspond to the distinction transitive/intransitive found in ergative as well as accusative languages, I don't think a complete identification with the active type is possible. First, it is not clear exactly which characteristics of active languages are criterial in their typological differentiation from ergative languages. The key aspect in their characterization is the opposition action/state, often correlated with a distinction among nouns between animate (including in this class trees in Dakota), capable of performing actions, and inanimate, incapable of doing so. While the distinction unergative vs. unaccusative is basically a semantic one hinging on the agentive nature of the argument, the identification action/unergative/transitive and state/unaccusative is not clear. It should be noticed that active verbs in active languages are opposed to stative ones. The notion of state, on the other hand, does not seem to play such important role in Basque or in Georgian. Stative predicates in Dakota include, as noted above, verbs of action that result in a particular state. Thus, the predicate 'to sever' is not an action in Dakota. In fact, it is rendered as a 'state of being severedThis stative treatment of apparently transitive/active predications is quite pervasive in Dakota, while Basque, for instance, does not assign any prominent role to the notion 'state' in this manner, nor does Georgian as far as I know. As for 'animacy', it does play an important role in Basque, but of a rather different nature: locative cases present different forms for animate and inanimate nouns. However, this is com-

Ergativity in Basque

51

pletely independent from the particular predicate type of the clause, and animacy does not play any more important role for subject, object / verb relations than in other accusative languages. Klimov (1979) provides a list of several of the characteristics that according to him set active languages apart as a typologically distinct class, and which set Basque (and, apparently, Georgian) with accusative/ergative languages rather than active ones. In both languages, adjectives form a distinct category, and stative sentences are formed with copulas, rather than adjectival predicates as in the Dakota example above. Identity of forms for pairs like lkilP and 'die\ which he considers a typical active feature does occur in Basque, where these predicates are both expressed as hil, used with izan as 'to die' and with *edun as 'to kill'. It seems, however, that this case is not different from other 'labile' type of alternations typical of ergative languages. Direct and indirect objects are kept as important categories in Basque and Georgian, while active languages often replace them by notions like 'nearest' complement, which equate the complements in structures like cutting a tree and running to the river, treated as belonging to the same type of complement. Also, Basque shows a verbal conjugation system based on tense/aspect rather than 'modes of action' typical of active languages. This set of 'active characteristics' presented by Klimov shows the problem of such taxonomic listings: it is not clear which of these features are crucial for the typological characterization of a particular class. Furthermore, it is not clear either which ones are actually associated with 'active' languages as such and which ones represent shared features of a particular Amerindian Sprachbund. There is one important aspect, however, which does differentiate active and ergative languages: the former exhibit none of the split phenomena that are invariably associated with the latter. As shown above, both Basque and Georgian present these splits in their case systems, and particular as these splits may be, they associate both languages with the ergative/accusative type rather than with the active type. 1.4.3 Case marking Following the UH, there is a one-to-one correlation between D-GF and morphological case: D-objects will be marked absolutive, D-subjects ergative. To that extent, Basque ergativity can be reanalyzed as extended ergativity, in essence a subtype of nominative/accusative marking systems. However, the direct correlation GF-case is disrupted precisely at the level where case is checked in this framework: S-structure. Application of Movea to unaccusative D-objects, required by Burzio's generalization, places them in subject position, where they are marked absolutive. Then, following the typical ergative pattern, some S-subjects end up marked absolutive

52

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

and some others ergative. A clear generalization regarding the correlation between grammatical function at D-structure and morphological case is lost at S-structure, precisely at the level which is relevant for case assignment in this theory. To circumvent this problem and preserve the extended ergative correlation GF-case, while still assuming that case is checked at S-structure under government, Levin suggests that Burzio's generalization does not hold for Basque and that verbs in this language assign absolutive case to their objects whether they assign 0-role to their subjects or not. Then, D-objects remain in that position and are checked for absolutive case by the verb, and subjects are assigned ergative case by INFL. D-objects remain objects at S-structure, and a one-to-one case assignment can be done at that level too. 25 Since control phenomena exist in Basque and only the subject position is controlled, as in other languages, the controlled argument of unaccusative verbs must be in subject position. Levin claims that this follows directly from her hypothesis: if the only (D-object) argument of an unaccusative verb is PRO, it cannot stay in a governed position and must move to subject position, where it can be the controlled argument, as in (103): (103)

This movement to the subject position would not be prompted by Burzio's generalization. In fact, it occurs in tenseless clauses, where the subject position is not assigned case. It is required by the PRO theorem of Binding Theory. Although claiming that Burzio's generalization does not hold for Basque entails some severe problems which will be examined presently, it does have one appealing consequence: if verbs can always assign case to their objects, the role of NP-movement in Basque would be greatly diminished, since there would be no 'need' for objects to move to the subject position. In fact, no clear cases of NP-movement to the subject position have been motivated in Basque. 'Seem' type verbs appear to actually assign 0-role to their subjects (see Salaburu (to appear)), and the status and properties of the Basque passive construction are also dubious (see Rebuschi (to appear a)).

Ergativity in Basque

53

There are some problems with this hypothesis, however. As observed above, PRO moves to subject position (ungoverned in tenseless clauses) to avoid a violation of Binding Theory, rather than a violation of the Case Filter (or a visibility violation). Thus, the chain (PRO,e) has a case assigned to its terminal element [e], violating the principle that the head of a maximal CHAIN (including both movement chains and expletiveargument pairs) be the case-marked position. A related problem is made evident in the type of structure that this hypothesis presupposes for unaccusative predicates with overt arguments. The structure of a sentence like (104i) must be as in (104ii): (104)

i. ii.

Jon heldu da John-A arrive aux John has arrived [e] ¡-[ vp[ Jon heldu ] I ]

[e] in (104) is not 0-marked by the unaccusative verb, but the position is required by the Extended Projection Principle or the requirement that VP have a subject to be licensed as a predicate. Presumably, then, this structure is similar to the D- and S-structure of some unaccusative verbs in Italian, like (105): (105)

i. ii.

Arriva Giovanni arrives John John arrives [e]j r [ vp[arriva Giovannii ] I ]

In (104), since [e] is not an independently 0-marked argument (V does not have any other 0-role), the position must be filled by some kind of empty expletive, linked at D-structure with Jon. However, while the pair (e,Giovanni) in (105) qualifies as a CHAIN following the principle (106) below (see Chomsky (1986a:137)), the pair (e,Jon) in (104) does not: (106)

If C = (a l v .., a n ) is a maximal CHAIN, then a„ occupies its unique 0-position and ai its unique Case-marked position

The maximal CHAIN (e,Giovanni) in (105) is canonical in that its head is the case-marked element (marked nominative by INFL) and its final element (Giovanni) its 0-marked element (assigned 0-role by the unaccusative verb). On the other hand, (e,Jon) in (104) does not conform to (106), since the case and 0-marked element is Jon, its final element a„. Independently of this, something must be done to prevent INFL from assigning ergative case to [e] in (104). Ergative case is not assigned since the auxiliary

54

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

does not include any ergative marker in unaccusative verbs, and if it is assigned the CHAIN (e,Jon) would receive two cases, violating the requirement that CHAINs contain exactly one case-marked position. The analysis also runs into trouble on descriptive grounds. Thus, I will claim in Chapter 3 that there is a rule adjoining the negative particle ez to VP from its D-structure position in INFL. Unless other independent factors prevent this movement from taking place, ez and the inflection will linearly follow the subject and precede the VP in neutral word orders. If unaccusative D-objects remain in their D-structure position within VP, they should linearly follow ez, while transitive and unergative subjects would precede it. If, on the other hand, unaccusative D-objects move to subject position, the prediction is that subjects of transitives, unergatives and unaccusatives will precede ez in the unmarked word order. The latter prediction is borne out by the data in (107) through (109), with neutral orders: (107)

i. ii.

(108)

i. ii.

(109)

i. ii.

Jon-ek bere kotxe-a saldu du John-E his car-A sell aux-edun John has sold his car Jonek ez du bere kotxea saldu neg John has not sold his car Kotxe-ak ondo funtzionatzen du car-E well work au x-edun The car works well Kotxeak ez du ondo funtzionatzen neg The car does not work well Jon heldu da John-A arrive aux-izan John has arrived Jon ez da heldu neg John has not arrived

Thus, since ez appears before the predicate VP, the preceding data show that unaccusative arguments must occupy the subject position rather than their D-object position within VP. Another indication that unaccusative D-objects occupy the subject position at S-structure is provided by the genitive object construction with nominalized clauses reviewed in Section 1.2.2 above. Case marking in

Ergativity in Basque

55

nominalized clauses follows exactly the same pattern as in tensed clauses. However, in northern dialects the verbal element in nominalized structures with -t(z)e may optionally mark its first object by means of the genitive case assigned by nouns, rather than with the absolutive case assigned by verbs, the only alternative in other dialects. Crucially, subjects are assigned case in nominalizations following the same rules as in tensed clauses. If unaccusative D-objects remain in object position, they are expected to be optionally marked genitive like other objects, while in fact, as stated in that section, unaccusative arguments must be marked absolutive instead.26 The hypothesis that Basque verbs do not obey Burzio's generalization and can assign case regardless of their 9-marking properties with respect to the subject confronts also some serious theoretical problems. In a rulesystem model of Universal Grammar, different languages might make use of different sets of rules. All UG provides in such a model is some restrictions on the types of permitted rules and an evaluation metric that selects the simplest language compatible with the child's linguistic experience. In a principles and parameters model, however, there are some subsystems of principles (some of which may allow for parametric variation) which interact in a rather complex way. Any explanatory account of core linguistic phenomena must be shown to be derivable from those principles, as shown in Chomsky (1986a). Thus, Burzio's generalization stating that verbs assign case to their objects if and only if they 9-mark their subjects, expressed here as (110) is broken down in Chomsky (1986a) into the two subtheorems ( l l l i ) and (111ii), which he tries to derive from independently established principles: (110)

[ + A] < — > [ + T]

(111)

i. ii.

[ + A] — > [ + T] [ + T] — > [ + A]

(llli), left-to-right version of (110), is derived in the following way: if the subject is not 0-marked, the position must be occupied by either an expletive element (linked to an argument at D-structure) or by some element moved there by Move-a. If it is an expletive, it must be linked to a complement of the verb, since expletives must be linked with arguments at D-structure and D-structures are pure representations of s-selected complements of the verb. But then both the expletive and the D-argument would be assigned case, violating the principle that CHAINS have one unique case-marked position.27 Since the subject position cannot be occupied by an expletive, it may fail to be G-marked only if some element appears there by an application of Move-a. But this element must be in

56

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

a position P not case-marked, otherwise the chain will violate again the requirement that the initial element of the maximal chain be its case-marked element. Then no complement of V may move to this position, since they are case-marked. Therefore, if V case-marks its object the subject must be also 0-marked by V, or the position will not be filled, deriving then the theorem (111a). (111b), right-to-left reading of (110), states that if a verb 9-marks its subject, it case-marks its object. If the subject is case-marked and the object is not so, the latter must get case to satisfy the Case Filter. The object cannot get case from an expletive in subject position, because the subject position is 0-marked and the CHAIN would have two 0-roles. The object might move to subject position to get case. But the subject is 9-marked, so the 0-criterion would be violated again since the chain would get two 0-roles. Then, if the subject is 0-marked, the object must be case-marked by the verb or the 0-criterion would be violated. Burzio's generalization is then a theorem derived from independently established principles like the 0-criterion, requiring CHAINs to have one unique 0-marked position, the condition that expletives be linked with an argument at D-structure, the principle that a! of (106) be the casemarked position, etc. It is the interaction of these principles and theorems that gives the results expressed as (110). If verbs in Basque can assign case to their objects without 0-marking their subject, then the principle that expletives be linked to arguments at D-structure or the principle that the A(E)(D)

AGR obligatorily includes an absolutive index, and, optionally E, D or both. Some verbs discussed above, like jarraitu 'to follow' or begiratu 'to look at', depart from this unmarked pattern and have to include a lexical specification to the effect that they assign dative case to their first object. Since an absolutive index is obligatorily included by (113), the auxiliary must be marked with the unmarked form (third person singular) of the absolutive index, as in (114): (114)

Peru-k Miren-i jarraitu d-io Peter-E Mary-D follow 3A-3D-(3E) Peter has followed Mary

The absolutive index is exceptionally licensed by these verbs to be unlinked to any argument. We can assume that other feature bundles in AGR must be licensed by being uniquely indexed with an argument in their clause. Inversely, absolutive, ergative and dative arguments must be coindexed with AGR matching in case with them, since agreement is obligatory in Basque. Since AGR is exceptionally rich in including three case-marked PRO-like elements, rather than only one in some Romance languages or none in English or French, the null hypothesis for subject case marking would be that subject can be assigned any of the cases of the AGR that governs it. Unwanted case configurations would be filtered out by independent principles. Let's see how the case system sketched here would work for transitive, unaccusative and unergative predicates. Beginning with transitive predicates, direct objects must be marked

58

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

absolutive and indirect objects dative. Any other case assignment would violate (112). Turning to the subject, it may receive either E, D or A. It cannot be assigned D because it would violate (112ii) in its left-toright reading, since it is not the second object of V. The left-to-right reading of (112i) is violated if A is assigned to the subject, along with the requirement that each AGR element be coindexed with one single argument: A would be indexed with both subject and object. Only E can be assigned without any violation being produced. If the verb happens to be lexically marked to assign dative to its first object, the latter is marked so and unindexed A in AGR (obligatory if AGR is present) is licensed. Subject assignment proceeds as above. Turning now to unergative verbs like dantzatu 'to dance', we find a structure like (115): (115)

NP ,.[ vp[dantzatu] I ]

NP in (115) may be marked with any case in AGR. It cannot be marked A or (112i) would be violated. If AGR contains an element marked D, the subject cannot be marked D or (112ii) would be violated, and since D must be uniquely indexed with an argument in I", the verb must have a dative complement if D is to be licensed in AGR. Again, E can be assigned to the subject without violating any principle. Since AGR obligatorily includes A, unergative verbs will include a (transitive) auxiliary marked A-E, as is indeed the case: (116)

Ordu erdi batez dantzatu nuen hour half one dance aux-edun I danced for half an hour

Coming now to unaccusative verbs, there is a fundamental difference between this case assignment system and other systems more common in the literature: here AGR can assign any of the three structural cases, while in, say, Italian, AGR can assign only one, distinct from the one assigned by the verb. Since A can be checked here not only with the first object of V but also with AGR, unaccusative objects can be licensed with an absolutive case not only when governed by V but also when governed by AGR, that is, in subject position. (112i) licenses one member chains marked absolutive in object position, but it also licenses plurimember chains marked absolutive whose final member is in object position, even though the case assigner is different in both chain types. Thus, we must make more precise the context of the case assignment principles in (112), specifying that, say, absolutive case is assigned to a chain of category N " whose terminal element occupies the first object position of a verb. This spe-

Ergativity in Basque

59

cification is trivial if the chain has one single member, i.e. if the noun phrase has not been moved, but it has important consequences in unaccusative structures: absolutive case of AGR can be assigned to a noun phrase in subject position if it has originated in first object position. For example, a verb like heldu 'to arrive' s-selects a theme complement which is realized by an NP, so its D-structure will look like (117):

Since the subject is not assigned any 0-role by heldu, V cannot assign any case to its (first) object, which has to move to a case-marked position to avoid a Case Filter or visibility violation. We get then the structure in (118): (118)

Joni i [ Vp[ [e]i heldu ] I ]

The chain (Jon,e) is well-formed since its head element ai (Jon) is in a case-marked position and its final element a„ (e) occupies the G-marked position; the latter is an NP-trace since it is not a case-marked trace. Jon in subject position may be case-marked E,D or A. It must be marked A because it is the head of a chain whose terminal element is the first object of the verb and any other marking would violate (112i). Presence of any other case-marked element in AGR would violate the 0-criterion, since it would have to be coindexed with an argument in its clause which would not get any 0-role from the verb. The only possibility for this to occur is if an unaccusative verb has a second object, as in (119): (119)

(ni) Jon-i hurbildu n-in-tza-io-n I-A John-D approach lA-past-i'zan-3D-past I approached (to) John

Here Joni can get 0-role and case and no principle is violated. If this analysis is tenable, it seems preferable to a fully 'ergative' analysis of case marking, where ergativity is regarded as a purely morphological fact: verbs would assign accusative and dative case, and AGR nominative.

60

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

This abstract Case corresponds directly to morphological case in accusative languages, but not in ergative languages. For the latter, we would have to assume that accusative is always realized as absolutive, and nominative is realized as absolutive unless the latter is already 'occupied', in which case it would have to be realized as ergative. Apart from widening the gap between abstract and morphological case and from leaving the distribution of absolutive and ergative unexplained in unergative and exceptionally marking verbs, this analysis misses the point made by the UH for Basque: absolutive case is assigned to a chain if and only if the latter is 0-marked by the verb. For transitive (direct) objects the chain has one single member, the argument itself; for unaccusative D-objects, the chain has two members (a,e) since V itself cannot assign case and movement is required by the Case Filter. The only case of the three that AGR contains (and therefore can be assigned to the governed NP) and is compatible with this generalization is A. This analysis, based on the Unaccusative Hypothesis, is interesting because it accounts for apparent ergativity in Basque, and, as indicated above, in other 'ergative' languages like Georgian. Still, although clearly preferable and more explanatory than a fully 'ergative' analysis, the case assignment system proposed here should be regarded as a preliminary attempt in the direction of achieving a oneto-one correlation between G F and morphological case. Assuming that case is structurally assigned by V and INFL in Basque and that Burzio's generalization also holds for this language, the one-to-one correlation that the UH achieves at D-structure is lost at S-structure once unaccusative D-objects move to the subject position. However, the original state of affairs is recoverable via trace theory: unaccusative S-subjects head a bimember chain, while other S-subjects don't. A solution that merely assigns E to the head (and tail) of a unimember chain and A to the head of a bimember chain would only hide the problem in the expression of the 'solution' itself. In effect, it would just say that transitive subjects are marked E and intransitive subjects A, i.e., what we try to account for. Although the analysis presented here shares this problem to a certain extent, it has the advantage of being general: exactly the same mechanism that regulates object case marking regulates also intransitive subject marking. This is possible if there are two case assigners for A: INFL and V. While considering V assigner of A is uncontroversial, the possibility of allowing INFL to assign A might not seem so at first. However, I have claimed that, given the structure of Basque INFL, this is just the null hypothesis. A less contrived mechanism might be devised on the assumption (mentioned in footnote 25) that V and INFL are inherent case assigners in Basque, but I will not explore this possibility here. In this introductory chapter, I have examined what seems to me to

Ergativity in Basque

61

be the most crucial question ergative languages pose for linguistic theories: the creation of an asymmetry between core verbal arguments that does not correspond with the subject/object asymmetry found in accusative languages. The extent of morphological ergativity and the existence of split patterns has been examined in Section 1. In Section 2,1 have shown, for the most part in a theory-independent manner, that subject/object are relevant notions in Basque syntax, and that absolutive/ergative merely reflect morphological categories without any direct relational content, neither as linguistic primitives nor as derived notions. The fact that ergative systems, although marked, are quite widespread in unrelated languages suggests, however, that this apparently morphological quirk must be related to some overall feature of these languages. Section 3 reviews Marantz's attempt to relate it to a parameter in 0-role assignment. Basque, however, is shown to pattern with other accusative languages in this respect, and indeed this 0-role assignment parameter, if real at all, is unrelated to morphological ergativity. A different direction is examined in Section 4, where, following Levin (1983), absolutive arguments are shown to correspond to D-object arguments. Such system is not ergative, but 'extended ergative': despite the fact that the morphologically unmarked case is the object, rather than the subject as in accusative systems, this analysis allows to establish a one-to-one correlation between GFs and cases, showing that, even at the morphological level, at least for ergative languages examined under Perlmutter's UH, case marking does reflect a universal subject/object asymmetry. In the following chapter I will show that this asymmetry in Basque must be derived in fact from some structural configurations which directly reflect it. NOTES 1. Trask (1979) mentions both Basque and the Mayan language Tzeltal as not showing any split, but, as will be shown immediately, Basque also presents a limited, but clear, split. 2. The frequent lack of passive constructions and the fact that in passives of accusative languages the underlying object becomes a derived intransitive subject led to the hypothesis of the 'passive' character of these languages beginning with Schuchardt. As recently as 1970, Hale analized Warlpiri as involving obligatory passivization. The lack of passive constructions may have been overstressed: at least Eskimo and Mayan languages, and perhaps Basque, do have passive (and antipassive) constructions. Furthermore, since syntactically the ergative nominal seems to behave like the subject of accusative languages, the hypothesis is not very explanatory. For a more interesting approach that explains in diachronic terms both the relative lack of passive and the presence of split systems, see Trask (1979). 3. However, Jacaltec also presents non-locational prepositional cases which are more difficult to explain in this fashion. 4. The standard literary language, following northern dialects, distinguishes between plural ergative (-ek) and plural absolutive (-ale). Both are homophonic in southern dialects. In many cases, even though partial homophony exists, the two cases are kept separate by a different stress pattern.

62

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

5. See note (20) for unmarked third person absolutives in the Bizkaiera dialect. 6. Morphologically, a second person addressee is usually marked by either the ergative or the dative, in conjunction with other changes like the appearence in the present of past tense context markings. Some examples are: (i)

Neutral form

Allocutive form

n-a-go lsA-pres-be I am

n-ia-go-k lsA-2sD(masc)-be-2sE I am

d-a-tor 3A-pres-come He comes

z-e-torr-ek 3A(past)-past-come-2sE He comes

d-a-ki-t 3A-pres-know-1 sE He knows

z-e-ki-na-t 3 A(past)-past-know-2sD(fem)-1 sE He knows

There is great dialectal variation in allocutive forms. 7. There were about 60 of these synthetic verbs in the XVIth century, and their number and usage has been declining in favor of the periphrastic forms. See Lafon (1943) for a thorough study of the verbal system at that time. 8. Only simple hypothetical, present and past forms exist for both synthetic and auxiliary verbs, and periphrastic forms are used for the remaining tenses. In most dialects, izan 'to be' is the only auxiliary that has an independent participial form. To make a periphrastic form of the verb 'to have', izan itself is used, with a transitive auxiliary; thus izan naiz with intransitive auxiliary means 'I have been', and izan dut, with transitive auxiliary 'I have had'. Vkan is found as a citation form for 'to have' in some eastern dialects, but even in these, auxiliary forms actually belong to *edun. 9. Heath (1976) includes this split as a case of antipassive. Although, similar to antipassive constructions, in this split ergative system subjects are marked absolutive, the parallel seems to end here. In particular, it should be noticed that TS nominals retain the ergative case marking (hence no demotion has taken place at that level), and the verb is not intransitivized as it is in Eskimo, Dyirbal, Maya languages etc. Furthermore, it is not clear why this would occur in the precise case it does in Basque. This antipassive would have no functional value: it is neither discourse oriented (as in Eskimo (see Kalmar (1979)), nor used as a way of allowing the ergative nominal to be accessible to certain rules (coordination in Dyirbal (Dixon 1972) and question formation, focus and relativization in Mayan languages (Larsen and Norman (1979), Smith-Stark (1978)). 10. Rigsby (1975) brings forth evidence that imperative clauses operate on an ergative basis in Nass-Gitksan: imperatives involve a rule of 'ergative' deletion rather than 'subject' deletion. 11. Heath stumbled in trying to provide a rule for the genitive absolutive alternation in the texts he used. It seems, however, that genitive complements are optional and that they can always be substituted by absolutive ones. This illustrates one of the problems of working with a closed 'corpus' of data. After this chapter was written, I have come across a manuscript by Trask where the same point is made about the significance of this piece of data first observed, as far as I know, by Heath.

Ergativity in Basque

63

12. Conversely, in Dyirbal, which follows an ergative pattern in topic chain constructions, this pattern is maintained when the topic nominals are pronouns, even though in the split system of this language pronouns follow an accusative pattern in case marking and the chain will include a nominative (IS) topic in one clause and an accusative (TO) topic in its consecutive clause. See Dixon (1972:131). 13. Other interpretations that substitute the notion 'subject' by discourse related ones like 'prominent NP' have also been supplied for EQUI structures. See Brettschneider (1979) for Basque. 14. Remember that izan appears as the auxiliary here not because the complex verb is intransitive, but rather because the transitive auxiliary has no citation form of its own. When this verb is conjugated, forms of the transitive auxiliary, rather than of the intransitive izan, will appear. See note 8. 15. This analysis does not explain, however, a property of the other two complement types found in these constructions, namely, why subjunctive and, usually, -te nominalized complements must have an unlike-subject with respect to the matrix. A similar distribution can be observed in Spanish tensed complements. 16. Eguzkitza (1986) proposes a control analysis for these constructions, parallel to the pre-reanalysis structure in (63). However, exactly those arguments used in the text in favor of the reanalysis hypothesis can be used against a control analysis. Thus, such analysis would have to explain in some way why in these sentences, and only here, wh-words of the matrix clause may appear in the focus position of the lower clause. Also, agreement facts follow directly in the reanalysis hypothesis: agreement is strictly local, and since there is one single S, all of the arguments must be coindexed in INFL. To explain this case of non-local agreement for the control hypothesis, Eguzkitza claims that 'only instances of maximal projections with a realized specifier (S' and N") are a limit to the agreement of the internal NP's with the auxiliary verb'. Then, in his system, tensed complements with overt complementizers are S', a limit to agreement, the same as nominalizations, but unlike participial complements, which do not have any complementizer and are thus S complements. Then S is not a limit to agreement and arguments of the S participial clause must be coindexed in the matrix inflection. However, this explanation runs into trouble with other control participial constructions like the ones discussed in section 1.2.1, where we have again bare participles without complementizer, hence S's, and yet S is a barrier to agreement, as shown in (i), (ii): (i)

(ii)

(ni-ki) ez' dut jakin-go [PRO* zer eman Mikel-i] I-E neg aux know-fut what give Michael-D I won't know what to give to Michael *Ez diotjakingo zer eman Mikeli

In (ii) the matrix auxiliary includes a dative marker corresponding to Mikeli in the lower clause, resulting in ungrammaticality. Furthermore, in this analysis, one has to assume that somehow S is not a barrier to agreement, but it is a barrier to government. Since S is not a maximal projection in this paradigm, PRO in subject position can be governed by the matrix verb, with the subsequent BT violation. It is not clear how this paradoxical behavior of S can be derived from independent principles. 17. As the translations in (79) suggest, it is quite possible that some of these verbs, although lexically related to their transitive counterparts, are syntactically non-reflexive verbs similar to Spanish pronominal verbs like mojarse 'to get wet', as Eguzkitza (1986) points out. The case is not so clear for the examples in (78) with a verb like ikusi 'to see', although here it is also used in a somewhat metaphoric context of 'be left in an unexpected situation'. There are more clearly 'reflexive* uses of ikusi, however, as in (i):

64 (i)

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque Ispilu-an ikusi zen mirror-in see aux-izan He saw himself in the mirror

quite normal in colloquial usages. There is a tendency in modern Basque, where most speakers are bilingual, to equate Spanish se verbs conjugated with reflexive pronoun with Basque izan verbs, and the generalization of this type of reflexives (and detransitivized reciprocals, in a parallel fashion; Spanish reciprocals also use the reflexive pronoun series) is one of its manifestations. Language internal factors help, since for instance impersonal sentences, also involving reflexive pronouns in Spanish, have always been expressed by a detransitivizing strategy, see 3.3.2. Also, universal principles might be operating in both languages at the same time, since this type of homophony is quite pervasive. 18. Levin mentions some exceptions like mintzatu 'to talk', which is 'exceptional' in that it is conjugated with izan despite being a speech (hence typically unergative) verb. 19. Some transitive predications are also expressed by this type of verbal phrase, as can be seen in cases like so egin 'to look'. Since the absolutive marking in the inflection crossmarks the noun so, the logical object of this expression appears in the dative case. 20. Third person singular is the unmarked morphological form of the auxiliary markers. A third person singular absolutive marker appears when a nominal in the partitive case is used instead of the absolutive in certain contexts, for sentential complements, and subjects etc. Indefinite object deletion is not reflected by an intransitivization of the auxiliary, but, rather, the auxiliary keeps the absolutive object marker in the third singular form. Similarly, a third person singular ergative marker is used in wheather expressions like (i)

Euri-a egiten d-u rain-A do 3A-erfun-(3E) It is raining

Morphologically, third person singular ergative is the unmarked form for ergative in the auxiliary, realized as 0. In the Bizkaiera dialect, third person absolutive is also 0 in the past tense: cfr. Bizk. ebilen 'he walked' with standard zebilen. 21. Again, not all monadic verbs conjugated with edun are unergative, although this semantic class represents the bulk of the examples. Verbs like etsi 'to get disillusioned', sufritu 'to suffer', iraun 'to last', jarraitu 'to continue', etc., behave like the predicates in the list. One might be tempted to include the intransitive use of irakin 'to boil' as another case of unaccusative predicate conjugated with the transitive auxiliary. However, this may be a bona fide unergative predicate, since it is also treated as such in Georgian. It may be considered a member of the 'emission of stimuli' semantic class. It cannot be claimed that the presence of a dummy absolutive marker is just a function of the need to use the transitive auxiliary edun, whose forms necessarily include an absolutive marker. Thus, it is not that the absolutive marker is present because edun is used, but rather the opposite: edun appears because there are two markers, one of them empty, required by these verbs, since synthetic forms conjugated without the help of the auxiliary still include the absolutive marker, as in (i): (i)

d-irau-te 3A-last-3E They last

22. The fact is obscured in some varieties of Basque by a tendency to mark personal direct objects by the dative case, perhaps as a result of interference with 'leista' Castilian Spanish.

Ergativity in Basque

65

In these varieties sentences like (i) are common, with the 'subject' of the unaccusative verb marked dative rather than absolutive: (i)

Mikel-i joan-erazi d-io-t Michael-D go-cause 3A-3D-1E I have caused Michael to go

The same appears to be the case with perception verbs, which in Basque show up as having nominalized complement clauses in the locative case, with an empty subject PRO controlled by an object of the perception verb, (ii) shows the standard usage with unaccusative embedded verbs, while (iii) shows its variant in this non standard usage: (ii)

(iii)

Mikek ikusi d-u-t [ PRO, Michael-A see 3A-ukan-lE I saw Michael go Mikel-i ikusi d-io-t joaten Michael-D 3A-3D-1E I saw Michael go

joa-te-n] go-nom-loc

On the other hand, the fact that in the standard dialect both IS and TO end up marked as absolutives does not provide support for the 'ergativity' of Basque causatives. First, this seems to be a widespread characteristic of causative constructions in language after language, and hence presumably derived from general principles operating in UG quite independently from ergativity. Second, as shown in the text, some ergative nominals are also marked for the direct object case, depending on whether they are arguments of one or two place predicates. It is clear then that it is not simply the case that 'absolutives' remain so and ergatives are marked dative: the set of nominals marked absolutive in the causative phrase is not the same as the absolutive in non-causative counterparts, hence the ergativity of causative constructions in Basque is not clear even leaving aside the previous observation on their status in UG. 23. Causative forms of [NP EGIN] verbal compounds are different from the other causative examples shown in the text in that since the verb is actually egin, they appear with its particular causative form eragin, with the causative non-productive infix -ra- rather than the productive suffix -erazi of the preceding examples. In present day Basque, this exception is largely normative, and regular eginerazi forms are also encountered. 24. A partitive-like expression parallel to Italian ne exists in the Bizkaiera dialect: arean, a fossilized expression formed by the demonstrative a 'that' in the archaic ablative case -rean, literally 'of that'. Although I don't have enough data on its distribution, the only examples I have found involve reference to absolutive nominals, as in the following examples: (i)

(ii)

arean dago of-it is There is (some) of it (Cfr. II y en a) arean dakit of-it know I know (some) of it

If this distribution is confirmed, it would provide more evidence for syntactic unaccusativity in Basque. 25. Although Levin does not address the issue directly, it seems that the type of case assignment she assumes for Basque is structural rather than inherent, since it takes place

66

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

at S-structure. A possibility which has been left open by subsequent research would be to claim that Basque case assignment is inherent. Although inherent case is assumed to be assigned by P, N and Adj only, this restriction seems stipulative, and languages may also have the option of assigning inherent case by V. If this were inherent case, it could be assigned at D-structure, where the one-to-one correlation is clear. Still, in the text I will follow current assumptions and consider V and INFL structural case assigners, proposing an S-structure case assignment system. 26. There are also some problems with Levin's account of control structures. Some verbs require the subject of their tenseless complements to share the index of one of their arguments, subject or object depending on lexical properties of each predicate. In unaccusative structures, since the verb can assign case to its argument regardless of the absence of AGR in INFL in tenseless clauses, it is possible to have a phonologically realized unaccusative D-object and the subject empty category sharing the index of some superordinate argument, as in (i): (i)

*nik ez dakit [ [e], [ni* nora joan] ] I neg know I where go I dorft know where (I) to go

(i) is not ruled out by BT principles, since whatever version of BT is accepted, the D-object must be allowed to be coindexed with the expletive-like subject or all unaccusative structures will violate principles B or C. Possibly, some restriction would have to be placed to prevent expletive-like elements like [e] in (i) from being controlled. In general, Levin's analysis seems to miss a common generalization concerning the distribution of subject PRO's: in tenseless clauses, where the subject cannot be assigned case, lexical NP's will be ruled out by the Case Filter and PRO will be acceptable. The same explanation will hold for Basque transitive tenseless clauses, but, crucially, not for intransitive ones, since unaccusative D-objects can always be assigned case and can therefore be lexically realized NP's. Although some explanation in terms of 'expletive control' may be devised, it is disturbing that two unrelated mechanisms (one in transitive tenseless clauses, the other in intransitive ones) ensure that the same distribution occurs in Basque (with the provisos discussed in 3.3.1) as in other languages, while in the latter one single mechanism accounts for the phenomenon. 27. And, if the expletive is in subject position of a tenseless clause, (106) is also violated because the final member of the maximal CHAIN is its case marked element.

Chapter 2

Word order and configurations

2.0 INTRODUCTION

Beginning with Hale's studies on Warlpiri (Hale 1981, 1983), a great deal of work has been carried out to provide some type of parametric explanation for a cluster of properties that help identify the set of so-called nonconfigurational languages. These languages 'typically' present free word order (to different degrees), discontinuous constituency and lack of Movea based relations in their syntax. 1 As in the case of 'active' languages discussed in the previous chapter, these features are not criterial, in that presence of each one is not a sufficient (and even necessary, as in the case of discontinuous expressions) condition for class membership into this particular linguistic group. Earlier GB studies in Basque (Azkarate et al. (1982a,b), Ortiz de Urbina (1983)) have assumed a non-configurational structure for the language, based mainly on facts of word order. Indeed, while other properties of these languages are clearly absent from the grammar of Basque (discontinuous expressions) or arguably so (lack of movement transformations) 2 , the 'scrambling' nature of the language is a rather conspicuous feature whose significance in the grammar of Basque demands some explanation. Languages like Warlpiri, Latin and Basque, perhaps due to their morphologically rich case marking systems, do not need to identify GF's by positional relations among verb and arguments. They typically allow, instead, for free permutations among clausal constituents that seem more general and less rule governed than the limited cases of word order variations found in more rigid configurational languages (like subject postposing in Italian and Spanish). The basic intuition is that in fixed word order languages complex branching relations among clausal nodes make up for the relatively poor morphology and GF's are then directly reflected in structural configurations. In particular, subject and object NP's are distinguished by the asymmetry of government that the presence of a maximal projection of V (VP) creates: in a configurational structure V governs one NP (its object) but not the other, which is solely governed by INFL. On the other hand, non-configurational languages, in which most word orders are possible, seem to use a 'flatter' type of structure where grouping of adjacent constituents into complex configurations is

68

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

both unlikely (given the variety of possible constituent combinations) and, in a way, redundant (since the G F of term NP's is also reflected at Sstructure through morphological case). The purpose of this chapter is to motivate a configurational structure for Basque at both S-structure and LF. What I will try to show is, then, that despite more-or-less-free word order, this language displays a full range of subject/object asymmetries that cannot be easily explained in a non-configurational frame but that follow directly if we posit a garden variety configurational structure at all levels. The chapter is organized as follows. In Section 2.1,1 describe word order facts in Basque examining both head-complement relations within NP's, PP's and AP's and, what is more relevant, word order relations among constituents at the S level. In Section 2.2 an argument for configurationality in Basque is made based on a set of subject/object asymmetries that are crucially explained only if a more structured representation for Basque sentences is accepted than assumed in the non-configurational hypothesis, one that places subjects at a different level from objects.

2.1 WORD-ORDER CONSTRAINTS: BASQUE PHRASE STRUCTURE

Before examining word order constraints at the S level for V projections, let us focus our attention on head-complement relations for other lexical categories such as N, P and A. As will be seen, while directionality in the head complement relation for [-V] categories is rather fixed, [ + V] (A,V) categories have a much less restricted relationship. Where it exists, the evidence suggests that the head of a lexical projection appears to the right, and that the canonical government relation is then [ X], 2.1.1 N-complements N-complements offer a mirror image of N " and N' complements in English. Strictly subcategorized complements corresponding to Jackendoffs (1977) N' complements occur to the left of the head, marked by the genitive case -(arjen, as in (1): (1)

i. ii.

herri-en zapalketa people-p.gen oppression The oppression of peoples zerri-aren hilketa pig-s.gen killing The killing of the pig

Word Order and Configurations

69

Basque complements corresponding to his N " level occupy also a prehead position. This is the case of restrictive relative clauses and different types of oblique complements, but, in both Basque and English, adjectives occur to the opposite side of the head noun, contrasting with adjectival clauses (although, interestingly enough, wh-words questioning the adjective, like zein 'which' or nolako 'which type' precede the noun). Relative clauses and adjectives are attached directly to the head noun they modify. Relative clauses in Basque include a gap corresponding to the argument that is understood as being coreferential with the antecedent. Their verb, marked by the subordinating particle -(e)n, must occur in clause final position: (2)

i. ii.

Neska ilegorri-a girl red-haired-A Red-haired girl Ilegorri-a d-en neska is-comp girl(A) The girl who is red-haired

There are cases, however, where semantically restrictive relative clauses appear postposed with respect to the head noun, in apposition, as in (3), where the head is followed by a headless relative clause marked in the same case as the antecedent.3 In such clauses, the subordinating particle -(e)n is not followed by a case marked noun. Instead a case ending is directly attached to it: (3)

i.

Ni-k (esaten nuen) ez zegoe-la ama-ren alaba-rik I-E say aux neg was-comp mother-of daughter-part [ni-gandik seme-rik izango zue-n-ik] I-from son-part have aux-comp-part I said that there wasn't any daughter of a mother that would have a son from me ii. Bada oraindik obra bat [etxe-ko sukalde-ko is still work one(A) house-of kitchen-of su-ak irentsi zue-n-a] fire-E swallow aux-comp-A There is still one work that the fire of the kitchen swallowed iii. Heldu-ko da egun bat [hone-taz ere argi-a arrive-fut aux day one(A) this-on too light-A egin-go d-en-a] make-fut aux-comp-A A day will arrive in which light will be shed on this too

However, these postposed relative clauses must be considered appositions.

70

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

They are headless relative clauses adjoined to the right of Nmax and therefore outside of the N phrase. This is shown by the placement of the case ending. Case markings appear only on the last constituent of each phrase. Here, however, the relative clause follows a case-marked element, indicating that the relative clause is an independent element adjoined to N". The remaining complements that I have called 'oblique' are marked with the locative genitive case ending -ko and placed as pre-head modifiers. They can be nouns (4i,ii), adverbs (4iii,iv), case-marked nominals (4v,vi,vii) or postpositional phrases (4viii):4 (4)

i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii.

etxe-ko andre-a house-of woman-A Housewife Bilbo-ko zubi-a Bilbo-of bridge-A The bridge of Bilbo Beti-ko historia always-of story(A) The (same) story (as) always Bihar-ko eginkizun-a tomorrow-of task Tomorrow's task Etxe-ra-ko bide-a house-to-of way-A The way home Zu-retza-ko opari-a you-for-of present-A The present for you Andre-areki-ko maitasun-a woman-with-of love-A The love for the woman diru-rik gabe-ko gizon-a money-part without-of man-A A man without money

Complex NP constructions are treated sometimes as normal relative clauses, premodifying the head noun without using -ko (5i), or as 'oblique' complements, where the genitive is attached to the verb marked by the subordinating particle -(e)la (5ii):5 (5)

i.

Erruduna d-]en susmoa guilty is-comp suspicion The suspicion that she is guilty

Word Order and Configurations ii.

71

Onenak eman-a d-]ela-ko egiaztapena best give-A is-comp-of confirmation The confirmation that he has given his best

In both cases, complex NP's can be seen to follow the pattern of prehead complementation with nominal heads. Another group of 'oblique' sentential complements is made up by relative clauses that cannot be formed following the rather restrictive main relativization strategy in Basque. Since, as explained above, there is no relative particle and the coreferential argument in the relative clause is deleted, only arguments cross-marked in the inflectional system (A,D,E) are completely recoverable. When the gap is not represented in the inflection, vagueness or simply unacceptability results, depending on the degree of recoverability in other (pragmatic) terms, as first noticed by de Rijk (1968). Thus, when the (oblique) case marking of the relativized NP in the adjective clause coincides with the case marking of the head noun, the sentence is fully acceptable. To illustrate, in both (7) and (8) below the relativized NP in the embedded clause bears the instrumental case, but only (7), where the head noun is also marked in the instrumental, is acceptable, while (8), where both NP's have different markings, is not: (7)

(8)

zure atea ireki duda-]n giltza berbera-z irekiko dut nirea your door open aux-comp key same-inst open aux mine I will open my door with the same key I opened yours *atea irekiko duda]-n giltza poltsiko-an dut door open aux-comp key pocket-in I have I have the key with which I will open the door in my pocket

Other sentences where the gap and the antecedent would be marked in different cases are acceptable, especially for locative relativized arguments (gaps), again, provided the function of the gap is recoverable in some way. In both (9i) and (9ii) the relativized NP would be marked locative, but (9i) is a perfectly natural sentence, perhaps because of the close relation between 'living' and 'house', while (9ii) is strange, although definitely better than (8), because the relation between 'signing' and 'house' is not as direct:6 (9)

i.

Bizi naiz-]en etxe-a XVIII. mende-ko-a da live aux-comp house-A century-of-A is The house where I live dates from the XVIIIth century ii. ?Espartero-k sinatu du-]en etxea Espartero-E sign aux-comp house The house where Espartero signed (it)

72

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

Some relative clauses with oblique gaps not acceptable using this strategy appear with the subordinator -n followed by the general noun modifier marker -ko: (10)

Fruitua hartu zue-n-eko adarra fruit take aux-comp-of branch The branch from which he took the fruit

(11)

Itzal-ak ezabatzen dir-en-eko ordu-a da shade-A erase aux-comp-of time-A is It is the time when shades get blurred

(12)

'Zinema' irakurtzen du-en-eko leku-rantza doa cinema read aux-comp-ok place-to goes He goes towards the place where he reads 'Cinema'

Tenseless sentential complements follow the same pattern: the verb is nominalized and preposed to the noun with -ko:1 (13)

i. ii.

Ama iza-te-ko diziplina mother be-nom-of discipline The discipline of being a mother Neure buru-az ardura-tze-ko ohitura my self-inst care-nom-of habit The habit of taking care of myself

Tenseless participial relatives also share the same pre-head position marked by the -ko particle. They are formed adding this particle to the adverbial (participial) endings -ta and -(r)ik, and although used primarily for absolutive gaps, they can also occasionally be used with ergatives and locatives, in much the same way as tensed relative clauses: (14)

Urrun-dik entzun-da-ko kanta far-from hear-adv-of song The song heard from far away

(15)

Atzo egon-da-ko lekua yesterday be-adv-of place The place been at yesterday

(16)

Bizitza arriskatu-ri-ko gizona life risk-adv-of man The man (that had) risked his life

Word Order and Configurations

73

Consequently, it seems clear from the previous description that nominal heads occur to the right of their complements. This is especially clear for the vast array of -ko complements we have examined. This conclusion applies also to the lexical level, where noun compounds are right headed: (17)

i. ii.

futbol zelaia football field gau eskola night school

Left headed constructions do occur occasionally: we have seen above that pre-head restrictive relative clauses can sometimes be used as appositions following the head noun, like most non-restrictive relative clauses do in Basque. An interesting case is that of adjectives formed by attaching the -dun suffix to the root. This suffix is itself an old relative still rather transparent today, formed adding the relative complementizer -(e)n to the third singular form (du) of *edun 'to have'. It creates adjectives such as bibote-dun 'moustached', bizar-dun 'bearded'. It shares both the pre-head positioning of most restricted relative clauses and the post-head positioning of adjectives: (18)

i. ii.

gizon bizardun-a man bearded-A The bearded man Bizardun gizon-a bearded man-A The bearded man

Although not common, this feature is far from an isolated idiosyncrasy of -dun adjectivals: it can be observed in other cases such as origin adjectives and gabe postpositional phrases, which can appear both as pre-head and as post-head modifiers, as in (19): (19)

i. ii.

dirurik gabe-ko gizon-a money without-of man-A The man without money gizon dirurik gabe-a man maney without-A The man without money

Some cases of post-head -ko complementation are shown in (20); however, they may be considered lexicalized expressions, restricted to some fixed nominals whose meaning is not compositionally determined from the phrasal constituents:

74 (20)

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque i. ii.

haur beso-etako-a child arm-of-A Step child Jaun zeru-ko-a lord sky-of-A Lord of heaven

At the specifier level, the picture is more complex. Demonstratives occur to the right, and numerals (except bat 'one', which can be considered a determiner, and, in some dialects, bi 'two') to the left. Quantifiers are rather erratic: some precede the head (hainbat 'several'), some follow it (gutxi 'few', asko 'many') and some may precede or follow (zenbait 'several', anitz 'many'). This seems to be a general characteristic of specifiers, as will be seen in the discussion of adjective specifiers. 2.1.2 Postpositions To proceed in this discussion, I will assume that both case markers and true postpositions are manifestations of a category P. Since we will be concerned with the directionality of the relation between a marker X and its marked element Y, nothing in what follows hinges on the particular analysis of the Basque case system as a postpositional system with 'case' affixes interpreted as postpositions governing a noun. Thus, P could be realized as an oblique case mark or as a true postposition like at 'outside', gabe 'without', aurka 'against', kanpo 'outside', possibly bila 'in search of and zai 'waiting for', and some others.8 All of the P complements appear to the right of the head. This is trivially the case for inflected nouns, since they can be considered to be lexically produced units formed by the suffixation of the postpositions (case markers) to the noun base. P can also take PP complements. This is clearly the case with true postpositions as in (21)

i.

zu-re aurka you-gen against Against you ii. etxe-tik at house-from outside Outside the house iii. beldurr-ik gabe fear-part without Without fear iv. mendi-an zehar mountain-in across Across the mountain

Word Order and Configurations

75

Their complement is an inflected noun whose case is governed by the particular postposition. One might want to analyze in this fashion 'complex postpositions' bearing in mind that although formed by discreet units, they are lexically bound to the previous morphemes: (22)

i.

diru-aren-gatik money-gen-because of Because of the money ii. behi-aren-gan cow-gen-in(animate) Within the cow iii. etxe-ra-ko house-to-of (Of) to the house, for the house

Their pre-head position is fixed, as in the previous examples. The same pre-head placement occurs in the case of sentential complements of P: tensed clauses with the subordinators -(e)la (with a modal value in some cases) and -(e)n, and tenseless nominalized clauses can be case-marked to indicate different types of subordination (see 1.2.2 for nominalized complements). Some of them are shown below: (23)

i.

Udaberri-a heltzen d-en-ean spring-A arrive aux-n-loc When the spring arrives ii. Herri-ra heldu zar-en-etik town-to arrive aux-n-from Since you have arrived to the village iii. Egi-a d-ela esaten duzu-n-ez truth-A is-la say aux-n-inst Since you say that it is true iv. Su-hiltzaile-ak heldu dir-en-e(ra)ko fire-fighter-A arrive aux-n-by By the time the fire-fighters arrived

(24)

i. ii.

Gustatzen zaida-la-ko ikasten dut like aux-la-of learn aux I learn it because I like it Esku-an pistola du-ela-rik irten da hand-in pistol(A) have-la-adv go out aux He has gone out holding a pistol in his hand

These subordinators are again bound morphemes lexically attached to the

76

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

inflection bearing element, a synthetic verb or the auxiliary in verbs without any synthetic conjugation. Word order relations for arguments of the embedded clause with respect to the case markers will be dealt with below. Here, the relevant point is that the case mark always appears to the right of the element to which it is attached. 9 This is also the case of true postpositions like aurka 'against': (25)

i.

Autobus-etan erre-tze-aren aurka bus-in smoke-nom-gen against Against smoking in buses ii. ??Erretzearen aurka autobusetan

The same pattern of right headed constructions is therefore found for postpositions. 2.1.3 Adjectives Adjective complements present a much lower degree of cohesion with the head. As in many complement relations, the head governs the case of the complement in many adjectives -(ar)engandik ezberdin 'different from', -(ejrako prest 'ready for', -(e)rako/-(ar)entzat egokia 'appropriate for'. However, this 'case government' is not reflected in a strict positional relation of the complement with respect to the adjective head: both egokia etxerako 'appropriate for the house' and etxerako egokia are possible. Adjectival phrases with participial heads do seem to be head final: (26)

i. ii.

hauts-ez bete-a / ??betea hautsez dust-inst fllled-A Full of dust elurr-ez estali-a / ??estalia elurrez snow-inst covered-A Covered with snow

Sentential complements of adjectives tend to be head final, but this is not a rigid constraint and other orders are possible, as shown in the following sentences: (27)

i. ii.

Ahal bezain laster irte-tze-ko prest nago able as soon go out-nom-of ready am I am ready to leave as soon as possible Prest nago ahal bezain laster irtetzeko

Word Order and Configurations (28)

i. ii.

(29)

i.

77

Berriro ere has-te-ko berandu-egi da again too begin-nom-of late-too is It is too late to begin again Beranduegi da berriro ere hasteko

?Hori that That ii. Hori

da esa-te-n erreza is say-nom-in easy is easy to say erreza da esaten

While it is possible to claim that what we find in the (ii) cases are basically right headed constructions (as the (i) counterparts) with heavy shifted complements, the existence of a similar 'looseness' in phrases like (29) with rather 'light' complements indicates a more fundamental phenomenon. The same is the case for embedded adjectival phrases that are usually described as 'passives' in Basque, and where the adjectival participle has to occur clause finally, marked for agreement with the subject like other predicative adjectives. The same looseness in word order restrictions can be observed in the domain of adjective specifiers. As in the case of noun specifiers, some, the majority, precede the head (guztiz 'very', nahiko 'rather', hain 'so', oso 'very') and some follow it (samar 'rather'). Where the adjective modifies a noun appearing to its left, pre-head specifiers precede the whole [Noun Adjective] phrase, rather than the adjective. As shown in (32), it can even occur after the whole case marked phrase, as a kind of adjunct in apposition: (30)

i. ii.

(31)

i. ii.

(32)

hain ederra so beautiful hain zeru ederra sky Such a beautiful sky oso zabala very wide oso kale zabala street A very wide street

Helburu praktiko-a oso goal practical-A very A very practical goal

78

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

The looseness of the specifier-adjective connection is best shown in sentences where each one is focused by itself, being thus separated from the other elements of the constituent: (33)

i.

Oso ederr-a da very beautiful-A is It is very beautiful ii. Ederra da oso iii. Oso da ederra

Adjective projections then do not provide much evidence as to their possible canonical government structure, if indeed there is one. In the few structure types where some order seems more natural, the general right head principle seen for other categories does seem to hold. However, this is only a small part of adjective complements. Where there is a clear restriction, as with adjectival clauses, it is not a restriction directly on word order with adjectival heads, but, rather, a restriction towards verb-finality which exists also for other subordinate clauses, such as relatives, and is therefore part of a more general constraint. 10 2.1.4 V projections V projections bring us to talk about word order at the S level, i.e., between verb and complement and adjuncts. Basque is a rather free word order language, as is generally the case with rich case marking languages. All possible combinations of the four constituents in a sentence like (34) are acceptable, indeed grammatical sentences of Basque:11 (34)

Bilbo-n euskara hiru urte-z ikasi zuen Bilbo-in Basque(A) three year-for learn aux He studied Basque in Bilbao for three years i. ii. iii. iv.

Bilbon hiru urtez euskara ikasi zuen Bilbon ikasi zuen hiru urtez euskara Hiru urtez euskara ikasi zuen Bilbon Ikasi zuen Bilbon euskara hiru urtez

Although the subject in (34) is non-overt pro, overt subjects participate in this scrambling as any other argument. The clearest distinction between possible combinations derives from certain pragmatic factors: whenever some element is emphasized as the focus or new information element, it will occur in the position immediately preceding the verb, as will be discussed in Chapter Four. Therefore, if

Word Order and Configurations

79

the focus is for three years in the preceding sentence, only the following possibilities are available with the same information import: (35)

i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi.

Euskara Bilbon [hiru urtez ikasi zuen] Bilbon euskara [hiru urtez ikasi zuen] Euskara [hiru urtez ikasi zuen] Bilbon Bilbon [hiru urtez ikasi zuen] euskara [Hiru urtez ikasi zuen] Bilbon euskara [Hiru urtez ikasi zuen] euskara Bilbon

As will be discussed later Focus is an important concept in Basque grammar: the pre-verbal position is in fact the obligatory landing site for wh-words. Other processes that are seen to affect word order in languages of a more restricting type also seem to operate in Basque grammar. In particular, Topicalization (see de Rijk (1978)) can take any element and place it at the beginning of the clause, separated from the rest of the clause by a pause. Thus, in (36), where the topic has actually been raised to the matrix clause, a pause will occur after the topic sendagile hori 'that doctor': (36)

Sendagile hori, nire anaiak uste du oso ona de-la doctor that my brother think aux very good is-that That doctor, my brother thinks (he) is very good

In Chapter Four, I will show that many clause initial constituents must be analyzed as occupying a Topic position immediately preceding the C" structure. There are also other factors that can explain the choice of one particular order over the other. Thus, at the descriptive level, when there is a focused element, there seems to be a tendency to place the Focus-verb unit at the beginning of the clause, followed by the remaining elements (which can be in any order themselves). This is also the case in a language like Hungarian, with similar focalization facts (see Kiss (1987) and Kenesei (1986)). Thus, for copular structures, Mitxelena (1981) has shown that the four possible orders for a sentence like (37) group into two different sets with different characteristics:12 (37)

a. b.

Hau ona da this good is This is good A 1. hau / o n a da 2. ona / hau da

B ona da hau hau da ona

80

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

In terms of communicative import, 1(A,B) are opposed to 2 (A,B), since in each set the Focus-verb unit is the same as opposed to the other set. Phonologically, the A set differs from the B set both in the intonational contour of the final element and in the presence of a pause between the first element and the focus unit (henceforth V', following Horvath (1981), although see Chapter Four for a different view). Since the V' unit functions as an independent intonation group, this by itself does not identify the pre-V' pause as being the same as the pause that occurs following the topic in sentences like (36). However, the identification seems warranted by the fact that, as Mitxelena points out, it is the A group that is 'marked' in the same way as sentences like (36) with topicalized elements are felt to be 'marked'. Consequently, in all four types in (37) with a focused element, we find a clause initial V'. V' also occurs clause initially where the element in Focus position is a wh-word: (38)

a. b.

Nor-ekin etorri da Mikel? who-with come aux Michael Who has Michael come with? Zein da ona? Which (one) is good?

This is the normal usage. Some elements may occur before the wh-word, but again they are topicalized elements with a clearly perceptible separation: (39)

a. b.

Mikel / norekin etorri da? ona / zein da

The third indication of this preferred initial position for the V' constituent comes from embedded clauses. Focused elements in embedded clauses can appear in the Focus pre-verbal position of any 'upper' clause. In Azkarate et al. (1982a) this is accounted for by a Focus-to-Focus rule (an instance of Move-a) that applies as a bound movement from S to S leaving a trace in the intervening pre-verbal position. Although a more explanatory account will be offered in Chapter Four, the interesting aspect relevant here is that intervening clauses are usually verb-initial, as shown in (40): (40)

nor uste duzu zuk] esan duela Mirenek] etorriko dela who think aux you say aux Mary come aux bihar? tomorrow Who do you think Mary has said will come tomorrow?

Word Order and Configurations

81

Actually, these sentences would not be verb initial, but V' initial, since we have a [t V] unit that occupies the clause initial position. Important though the notion of Focus is for Basque grammar, it is clear that not all sentences have focused constituents (whether 'true' focused elements or wh-phrases) and that it is perhaps in these more 'neutral' sentences where order constraints may reflect 'grammatical' as opposed to 'pragmatic' restrictions on word order. SOV has rather unanimously been recognized as the 'neutral' word order in Basque and so is it proclaimed in the official grammar issued by the Academy of the Basque Language Euskaltzaindia (Euskaltzaindia 1985:43). According to de Rijk (1969:321325), for a sentence with subject object and verb, the SOV order is statistically as frequent as the other five taken together (although this might not be the case for all dialects; see Rotaetxe (1978) for a variety where both SOV and SVO have the same relative frequency). For a copulative sentence like the one in (37) with emphasis on no particular element, the most 'natural' (i.e. normally occurring, less marked) order seems to be [S ADJ COP], which is a subtype of SOV. Typologjcally, the language fits well into the SOV pattern: complements, where restricted, occur to the left of their heads, and other features of Greenberg's universals that do not hinge on the head-complement relation, such as the relative position of main verb and auxiliary, also classify Basque along with SOV languages. Thus, in affirmative sentences the main verb precedes the auxiliary (in negative ones the latter is attracted to the negative particle ez). At the lexical level, verbal compounds are also right headed, as shown in (41) with adjective and noun complements and (42) with verbal noun heads: (41)

i.

on-etsi good-consider to approve of ii. on-artu good-take to accept iii. lur-gorritu earth-redden to stir the earth

(42)

i.

ii.

buru-haus-te head-break-nom puzzle anka-sar-tze foot-put into-nom mistake

82

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

The verb-finality of the language can be observed in cases where the position of the verb itself is restricted: in such cases, typically involving embedded clauses, it is uniformly a restriction on the final position. Thus, relative clauses, both tensed (7-9) and tenseless participial (14-16) have to be verb final, and the same holds for other embedded adjectival clauses such as passive constructions. Furthermore, notice that in negative clauses, the scope indicating ez negative particle attracts the inflection bearing element to the left of the participle, a movement usually called lez attraction' in Basque grammar, which will be analyzed in further detail in Chapter Four. Then, the negative version of (43i) is (43ii); however, the same clause as an embedded relative cannot undergo ez-attraction. The verbal order must be as in (43iii): (43)

i.

Nire etxakide-ak ontzi-ak garbitu ditu my roommate-E dish-pA clean aux My roommate has washed the dishes ii. Nire etxakideak ez ditu ontziak garbitu neg My roommate hasn't washed the dishes iii. Ontziak garbitu ez ditu-en etxakidea -comp The roommate that hasn't washed the dishes

The fact that the rule of ez-attraction, which is obligatory in main clauses, is only optional in other types of embedded clauses such as (44), is an indication of the strong tendency to have the whole verb complex in final position: (44)

Ur-ik eman ez nielako hil dira lore-ak water-part give neg aux die aux flower-pA The flowers have died because I did not water them

The cases described up to now affect the relative position of the verb with respect to other clausal arguments, without being directly relevant to the problem of the position of the other arguments that are crucial in defining word order restrictions: subjects and objects. At a purely descriptive level, it is interesting to notice that again, where the relative position of subject and object is restricted, the restriction is uniformly that subjects precede objects. Two such cases are described in what follows, one involving multiple wh-words or negative elements and the other involving preferred ordering imposed by interpretational strategies. Some languages accept multiple wh-word questions, where, given the doubly filled COMP restriction, only one wh-word may appear in COMP

Word Order and Configurations

83

position, while the others remain in situ in their base-generated positions, unmoved at S-structure and assigned scope only at LF level by application of a wh-movement rule. These constructions are subject to restrictions as to the particular wh-phrase which can appear in COMP, the type of data shown in (45) that 'superiority conditions' attempt to explain:13 (45)

i. who said what ii. *what who said

Multiple wh-questions are possible in Basque following two strategies. In one strategy, wh-elements appear conjoined with the copulative conjunction eta 'and' between the last two elements. Word order is not restricted: (46)

i. ii.

noiz nori eta zertarako esan dio Jonek egia? when to whom and what for say aux John truth When, to whom and what for did John tell the truth? nori noiz eta zertarako esan dio Jonek egia?

In the second strategy for the formation of multiple wh-questions, the whwords are strung together without conjunctions. If ergatives, datives and absolutives are questioned, the corresponding wh-words must follow the relative order E, D, A, as shown in the following examples: (47)

i.

nor-k nor-i zer esan zion? who-E who-D what(A) say aux Who said what to whom? ii. *nork zer nori esan zion? iii. *zer nork nori esan zion?

Thus, where restricted, subject, direct and indirect object have to appear in a certain order which corresponds to the one usually assumed for Basque: S/OBL/DO/V. The same type of restrictions can be observed with negative sentences, as shown in (48), with neutral intonation: (48)

i.

ez dio inor-k inor-i ezer esan neg aux nobody-E nobody-D nothing(A) say Nobody has said anything to anybody ii. *Ez dio inori ezer inork esan iii. *Ez dio ezer inork inori esan

A similar conclusion can be derived from other, more specific cases where processing difficulties seem to force a particular ordering between subject

84

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

and objects. Thus from a sentence like (49i), we can question the dative argument in the embedded clause and raise it to the 'focus position' of the upper clause, as in (49ii): (49)

i.

ii.

[Miren-ek Arantza-ri eskutitz-a idatzi dio-la] Mary-E Arantza-D letter-A write aux-that esan dio Jon-ek Mikel-i say aux John-E Micheal-D John has told Michael that Mary has written the letter to Arantza nor-i esan dio [idatzi diola Mirenek eskutitza t ] Jonek Mikeli? who-D Who has John told Michael (that) Mary has written the letter to?

While (49ii) is not very felicitous due to the abundance of trailing arguments, it becomes much more difficult to process if the order of the last two elements is changed: (50) ??Nori esan dio [idatzi diola Mirenek eskutitza]Mikeli Jonek? These cases are significant in that they show that in situations where basic mechanisms of the language (wh-movement to focus and scrambling in this case) produce sentences which are difficult to process, a more stringent word order is imposed to facilitate parsing and processing. In whichever way this is captured in the grammar of the language, the point here is that the particular order we encounter in this case is exactly that also found in other instances of word order restrictions between arguments in Basque, namely Subjects preceding Objects. This in turn coincides with the general intuition that SOV is the basic, unmarked word order pattern in Basque.

2.2 CONFIGURATIONALITY

Word order facts are important not only at a descriptive level, but also at a more explanatory one, since we would like to identify the parameter, if any, that distinguishes fixed word-order languages like English and French from freer word-order languages like Basque, and correlate this fact with other possible differences between the two language types that might be ascribable to that parameter. The particular proposal we want to check here is whether Basque word order phenomena are best explained as a consequence of the language's non-configurationality, in Hale's sense, or derivable from other grounds.

Word Order and Configurations

85

Notice that reference to 'free' word order in Basque should be taken with caution. Strictly speaking, if a language had 'free' word order, all possible permutations should be semantically and informationally equivalent. The fact that different word orders convey different informational import and, especially, that particular semantic differences can be associated in a principled way with particular changes from what speakers seem to consider 'neutral' order, clearly indicates that at least some permutations result from syntactic processes with distinct semantic repercussions. Thus, consider the two sentences in (51), which differ only in the relative order of subject and object: (51)

i. ii.

Jon-ek eskutitz-a bidali zuen John-E letter-A send aux John sent the letter Eskutitza Jonek bidali zuen

If Basque word order were actually 'free', we would expect these sentences to be equivalent, while in fact they differ from each other in some important ways. While (51i) can be given a neutral intonation similar in the relevant aspects to the one in its English gloss, (51ii), with a word order differing from neutral SOV, must be assigned a marked intonation. In (51 ii) either eskutitza and Jonek are given a listing intonation and the verb is assigned primary stress, bearing the focus of information, or, more likely, eskutitza is given neutral intonation and Jonek receives primary stress, while a pause separates both constituents. This will follow directly from two assumptions. The first one, discussed in Chapter Four, that focalized constituents {Jonek) move to SPEC in C" and hence any element preceding them will be interpreted as Topic, separated by a pause. The second assumption is more interesting for our present purposes, and it is that the order in (51ii) is derived, rather than base-generated. A similar point can be made with respect to the data in (37), and similar observations, with quite different conclusions, are made in Kiss (1987). Reference to 'free' word order in Basque in the following discussion should be understood bearing this in mind. 2.2.1 Free word order and configurations In the GB framework, free word order facts need not be explained by a specific setting of one particular parameter at one particular level. There are in fact two main mechanisms that can effect virtual free word order in a grammar, each entailing very different claims about the overall syntactic structure of the language. First, just as fixed word orders are base-generated by particular X-bar systems (or particular head-complement relations and

86

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

adjacency restrictions), free word orders can also be generated by some X-bar systems, and this was the original intuition in Hale (1981). Basque X-bar rules may have a limit on the general rule that accounts for head relations, (52)

X' — Y X

in such a way that X is restricted to N, P and possibly A, while V is expanded by a different sort of rule as in (53): (53)

V" : V' X*

With different executions, this is the general leading assumption for nonconfigurational languages: V" is expanded as an unordered set including the verb itself, and any number of N,P,A phrases without ordering constraints. The need for two different rules (52) and (53) is perfectly natural, since verbal projections seem to have a more basic importance than N or P projections in that they keep the sentence 'together' by subcategorization requirements and 0-role and case assignment. V might also be considered the head of S in this approach. The fact that elements in (53) are not ordered precludes the existence of any depth of branching in the structures defined by the rule: no two adjacent constituents can form a branching structure of which the others are not sister constituents and hence all elements c-command each other, creating a flat structure like (54): (54)

S NP

NP

INFL

PP

V

PP

The basic prediction that such structure makes with respect to term arguments is that there will be no subject/object asymmetry at the level where such non-configurational structure exists. Under this interpretation, 'free' word order is base-generated as a function of particular phrase-structure rules. However, there is a second interpretation of the phenomenon. Rather than locating its source in the X-bar system, different permutations may be the result of syntactic processes operating on a regular, possibly configurational, structure. This second source of 'free' word order may in turn be implemented as operating in either of the two mappings of levels which have 'visible' effects according to the theory: in the mapping from D- to S-structure, or in the mapping from S-structure to its PF representation. Under the former analysis, permutations would be the result of Move-a rules operating on the syntax;

Word Order and Configurations

87

under the latter analysis, they would be the result of PF scrambling rules. Given the structure of the theory, the empirical content of the latter analysis is not very high if PF scrambling is not a case of Move-a. Examples like (51) seem to favor a Move-a analysis, since permutational possibilities involve quite different structural configurations. In any event, a rule of (PF or syntactic) scrambling operating on a fixed order configurational structure and having basically the same effect as (53) produces any possible order of subject and V complements. There seems to be little question that the more neutral (and at the same time statistically most frequent) SOV order would be base-generated by the X-bar system of Basque. The claim would then be that head-complement relations and adjacency constraints generalize (52) to all categories in Basque, since objects occur to the left of the V head. Whether scrambling is a PF or syntactic phenomenon, the basic configurational structure generated by the X-bar system is maintained at both SS and LF, and the prediction is that subject/ object asymmetries can be observed at those levels in the same way as in fixed order configurational languages. Notice in particular that the relation PF scrambling-configurationality and unordered V"-non configurationality is not a necessary one. In particular, one might get the same results as the previous analyses by assuming a configurational base rule expanding the sentential category as in (55): (55)

a. b.

I" - NP I' I' — VP I

and another rule for the VP constituent identical to (53), where the head verb governs both to its right and its left and 0-role and case assignment are not restricted by any adjacency requirement. If the language is a prodrop language or if scrambling can apply to the subject NP at PF all word order possibilities are also generated, most of them by the phrase structure rules. Still, the subject/object asymmetry is preserved at both SS and LF. 14 In all these systems a special provision must be made so that V' occurs clause initially where the Focus position has been occupied, by means of PF stylistic rules, or following the alternative analysis presented in Chapter Four. All of the analyses mentioned above fall under two distinct sets: the non-configurational, base-generation approach using a rule similar to (53) and the remaining configurational approaches. The main thrust of this section is to argue for the second type of approach and against the nonconfigurational analysis of Basque, without entering in the evaluation of the best configurational approach. In the remainder of this Chapter, I will try to show that subject/object asymmetries do exist in Basque. I

88

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

will be arguing against one particular version of the non-configurationality parameter, one with no configurations at D- and S-structure or at LF, and one where all word orders are directly base-generated. As I will show, some of the data presented here might be accounted for by some downgraded non-configurational system. The point, however, is that the Basque data cannot be explained by the strict version within the framework assumed here. In order to account for the data, some modifications might be introduced in the strict version. However, the resulting version is theoretically much less appealing, since it usually involves positing some type of double-structure, reintroducing configurations at the lexical or logical levels. The conclusion will be that given the set of principles and parameters generally assumed in GB, strict non-configurationality cannot handle the Basque data. 2.2.2 SS and LF configurationality 2.2.2.1 Cross-over: arguments and non-arguments Horvath (1981) develops an argument for configurationality in an apparently free word-order language like Hungarian, based on weak crossover facts. In Chomsky's (1976) account of weak cross-over a particular directionality between the trace and the (non c-commanding) antecedent pronoun is assumed to cause unacceptability in sentences like (56): (56)

i. Hisi mother saw John; ii. *Whoi did hisi mother see ti

(56ii) would violate the constraint preventing traces from being coindexed with a pronoun occurring to their left. In (56i) no trace is present and coreferentiality is possible. Opposing a base-generated SVO order to Kiss's (1981) non-configurational rule V NP*, where all pre-verbal arguments are the result of topicalization, a sentence like (57) with an OSV order would be analyzed as (58i) or (58ii) in the alternative hypotheses: (57)

A professzort akitol oki matematikat tamultak professor who-from they math-acc learnt a fiuki nem szerettek boys not liked The boys did not like the professor from whom they learnt math.

89

Word Order and Configurations

TOP [the prof...theyi...]j

S ihe boysi

VP

not like tj

[the prof...theyi...]j

not like In the configurational hypothesis (58i), the only trace is left by the topicalized object, and is therefore coindexed with the whole relative clause to its left, rather than with the pronoun. Kiss's non-conflgurational analysis makes different predictions, as seen in (58ii). Since both subject and object are base-generated to the right of the verb, they must have been topicalized whenever they precede the verb. In (57), a sentence with OSV order, both subject and object precede the verb. The configurational analysis, with base generated SVO order, involves one single movement, namely, object fronting, as in (58i). In Kiss's analysis, with base generated verb initial order, it is not only the object but also the subject that must be moved to initial topic position, as in (58ii). But now there is a subject trace coreferential with the subject NP and with the pronoun to its left in the relative clause. This latter analysis predicts that the sentence should be ungrammatical as a weak cross-over violation, while in fact it is perfectly grammatical. This data contrast with sentences like (59) with a surface SOV order which must be generated in both analyses by topicalization of both subject and object (the object is not being focused here), and where therefore the object trace will be coindexed with the pronoun to its left, accounting in this ways for its unacceptability:

90

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

(59)

*A fiuk akiknek o matematikat tanittot, a professozrt boys who-to he math-acc taught professor nem szerettek not liked * The professor, the boys whom he taught math did not like

Horvath's configurational analysis correctly differentiates between (57) and (59), while Kiss's analysis implies both should be ruled out. Horvath concludes that a configurational structure is required for Hungarian, base generating the subject in pre-verbal position and moving it to the various surface positions by a rule of subject postposing similar to the one found in other pro-drop languages. Notice, however, that even if the interpretation were correct, the argument only shows that at the level where the leftness condition is checked (LF, since LF-generated traces like the ones resulting from focalization and QR behave in the same fashion) the language is configurational, without actually showing that such structure is also required at the SS level. Furthermore, the Leftness Condition is not an adequate characterization for weak cross-over phenomena: it introduces a directionality in the coindexing relation which is not required elsewhere in the grammar. Cases of 'precedence' relations can usually be shown to be derivable from ccommand asymmetries in right branching structures. Chomsky (1982) offers an alternative analysis of weak cross-over based on the Bijection Principle (BP), that does not rely on any directionality in the trace-pronoun relation. According to the BP, an operator cannot bind more than one variable. In (56ii), for example, the operator who binds its trace and the variable pronoun his. Under this formulation, both Kiss's and Horvath's analyses make the correct predictions, differentiating (57) and (59). The BP is not violated in (58i) or in (58ii). In the first analysis the relative operator in topic position only binds the object trace. In Kiss's analysis (58ii), each topic binds one single variable: the object relative clause in topic position binds an object trace and the subject topic binds a subject trace. Hence the BP is not violated and the sentence is predicted to be grammatical in both analyses.15 To illustrate further the irrelevance of BP as a criterion for configurationality, consider the case of Basque topicalized structures. If Basque is underlyingly an SOV language, a sentence like (60i), with SOV order, would be base-generated as such, while (60ii) with OSV order, would be generated moving the object to a Topic position:

91

Word Order and Configurations (60)

i.

ii.

[bera-kj salatu zuen lapurr-ak] ez zuen he-E denounce aux thief-E neg aux lekuko-a; ikusi witness-A see The thief that he denounced did not see the witness lekukoa [berak salatu zuen lapurrak] ez zuen ikusi ere egin witness; hei denounce thief see too do The thief that he denounced did not even see the witness

BP predicts that, under this assumption, sentence (60ii) would be ungrammatical, since the topic noun phrase is an operator binding both the pronoun berak and the trace in the original D-object position: (61)

s ,[ TOP [lekukoai] s [ Np [berakj

salatu...]vp[ti ez zuen ikusi...]

However, both sentences are acceptable in the intended interpretation. One might want to claim that there is no topicalization involved in these data, but rather that this is a case of PF scrambling where no traces are left behind. In particular, there would be no trace at LF, where the BP is assumed to hold, explaining the grammaticality of the sentence. However, as will be observed in section 2.2.2.2, these topics can be shown to leave traces that play a role in strong cross-over cases, which would be left unexplained otherwise. Instead, as noted in footnote 15, there is evidence that topics function as quasi-operators different from true operators like wh-words and quantifier-phrases. Therefore, traces bound by these quasioperators do not qualify as true variables for principles such as the BP. However, the point here is that even if these are cases of Move-a in the syntax, the data are compatible with both a configurational analysis and with a non-configurational analysis where both SOV and OSV are directly generated. Weak cross-over effects do appear in Basque sentences involving traces left by the application of Move-a, bound by true operators. In the following sentences there is a trace left by the wh-question or the focused element, regardless of the relative SO or OS order: (62)

i. *Beraki salatu zuen lapurrak norj ez zuen ikusi? he denounce thief who neg aux see *Who did not the thief that he denounced see? ii. *non ez zuen ikusi beraki salatu zuen lapurrak? who aux see he denounce thief *Who did not the thief that he denounced see?

92

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

(63)

*Beraki salatu zuen lapurrak JONi ikusi zuen The thief that he denounced saw JON

In (62) the trace is left by movement of the wh-word. In (63) the trace is left by movement of the focalized operator Jon. The BP is violated in both cases, since the operator binds the original variable and the pronoun variable. The fact that cross-over effects appear here but not in (60) suggests that the trace produced by Topicalization in (60) above does not count as a true variable and is not visible for BP, while traces of wh-words and foci in (62-63) are true variables to which BP is sensitive. Weak cross-over facts in Basque also support the existence of configurations at least at LF. This can be shown in structures with possessive pronouns corresponding to the well-known English cases in (56). Basque possessives have a neutral and an intensive form, which parallels the neutralintensive paradigm of personal pronouns: nire-neure 'my', hire-heure 'your', haren-bere 'his/her', etc. In the classic literary language (see Kintana (1971), Villasante (1972) and Sarasola (1979)) the intensive form in non emphatic contexts was used when the referent of the possessive is one of the arguments with which the verb agrees.16 In (64) the referent of neure is the ergative nik, and in (ii) the dative niri: (64)

i.

ii.

Ni-k neure kotxe-a utzi d-io-t I-E my-int car-A lend 3A-3sD-lsE I have lent him my car Neure aita-k ni-ri utzi d-it my-int father-E I-D lend 3A-lsD-(3sE) My father has lent it to me

Both dative and ergative are marked on the verb and therefore the intensive form neure rather than the neutral form nire must be used. I will return to this phenomenon in 2.2.2.6 as source of a possible argument for nonconfigurationality in Basque. The argument for a configurational structure presented here is based on third person possessives. For third person possessives, in the modern language the neutral form is obviative and the intensive proximate. Thus, in a pair of sentences like (65i,ii) below, in the standard language (following eastern dialects), (65)

i.

ii.

Jon-eki harenj ama ikusi zuen J-E his(neut) mother see aux John saw his mother Jon-eki berei ama ikusi zuen his(int) John saw his mother

Word Order and Configurations

93

haren cannot be interpreted as coreferential with Jonek and must be interpreted as connected in discourse with some other antecedent, constrasting with bere in (ii), which is coreferential with Jonek. 17 Where bere modifies a noun in subject position, we find the typical set of weak crossover phenomena between the possessive and certain arguments which it does not c-command: the possessive can be coindexed with an object noun (66i), but not with an object question word corresponding to that noun (66ii), nor with a focused noun (66iii): (66)

i.

Beres ama-k Joni atzo deitu zuen His mother-E John-A yesterday call aux His mother called John yesterday ii. *Norj deitu zuen atzo berei amak? who iii.??Bere amak atzo JON deitu zuen It was JOHN that his mother called yesterday

That (66i) is possible with that interpretation shows that what is involved is not coreference restrictions between intensive possessives and their antecedents, but something related to the fact that (66ii) and (66iii) involve operator-variable relations at LF while (66i) does not. This set of data contrasts with the following parallel cases where the possessive occurs within an object phrase: (67)

i.

Jon-eki bere, ama atzo ikusi zuen John-E his mother yesterday see aux John saw his mother yesterday ii. Atzo berei ama JONEKi ikusi zuen It was John that saw his mother yesterday iii. Nor-ki ikusi zuen atzo berei ama? who-E Who saw his mother yesterday?

Bere in an object phrase can be coreferential with a subject wh-word or focalized element, contrasting with (66), which shows that bere in subject position cannot be coreferential with an object wh-word or focalized phrase. If Basque were not a configurational language at LF, both (66iii) and (67iii) would be equivalent in their c-command relations, as shown in the following trees:

94 (68)

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque ( = 66iii)

(69) ( = 67iii) I"( = S)

ti berei ama his

ti

berei ama his mother

In both cases the possessive pronoun is c-commanded by the trace; it is locally A-bound and hence it is not a variable, since variables must be A-free. The BP is not violated in any case, since one single variable is associated with the wh-operator, leaving therefore the ungrammaticality of (66iii) unexplained. The lack of configurations entails a flat structure where both subject and object c-command each other, and therefore the traces of both subject and object always c-command bere, which will never be a variable. On the other hand, if we have a configurational structure at LF, subject traces c-command the object position, but object traces do not c-command the subject position. Then, bere in object position is c-commanded by the subject trace in (67iii). Therefore, in object position, bere is not a variable, since it is not locally operator-bound. Thus, the operator nork binds one single variable. The BP is not violated and (67iii) is predicted to be acceptable. On the other hand, bere is a variable in (66iii), where it occurs in subject position. The (configurational) structure of (66iii) will be as in (70):

Word Order and Configurations

95

Here the possessive does not have an A-antecedent and is therefore actually a variable bound by the operator nor. The latter binds two variables, bere and the original trace of wh-movement, characterizing the ungrammaticality of the sentence as a BP violation. In this way, the difference between (66ii,iii) and (67ii,iii) is directly accounted for in the configurational analysis, but not in the non-configurational analysis. For the latter to work, a subject/ object asymmetry must be introduced at some level in order to account for cross-over phenomena. This would lead to positing a double structure, while the alternative analysis presented here relies on a single configurational structure. 2.2.2.2 Referential dependencies and strong cross-over As the sentences in (71) show, subject pronouns cannot be interpreted as coreferential with an object noun, regardless of their relative order: (71)

i. *Bera-ki Jon* aurkeztu zuen he-E Jon-A present aux He presented John ii. *Joni bera-kj aurkeztu zuen Jon he present aux

Such data are consistent with both a configurational and a non-configurational analysis of Basque. If there is no VP projection, (71i,ii) are ruled out as a violation of a principle like Huang's Referential Dependency Condition, which prevents referential dependents from c-commanding their antecedents: both subject and object c-command each other and berak will always c-command its antecedent Jon.n The same explanation holds for (71i) in the configurational hypothesis, where the subject NP ccommands the object Jon. This is not the case, however, in (71ii) within the same hypothesis, since the latter has the following structure: (72)

r ,[

Jon, [ bera-kj vp [ t aurkeztu zuen]]]

If this order is not base-generated but the result of PF scrambling, the same explanation holds, since at S-structure both (71i,ii) have the same relations, and (72) is a PF representation. If, as suggested in the previous section, this order is the result of topicalization, that is, a case of Movea leaving a trace in the original position of the object complement, (72) is the S-structure and LF representation of (71ii) and it is ruled out as a case of strong cross-over, since the trace cannot be a variable bound by Jon due to the fact that it is locally A-bound by berak. It would be PRO, which violates Binding requirements since it occupies a governed (object) position.

96

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

These data contrast with those brought forth with respect to Japanese in Saito (1984), such as (73i,ii), where the antecedent is included in an adjective clause: (73)

i. *bera-ki ez du oraindik irakurri he-E neg aux still read [Miren-ek Jon-ii bidali zion eskutitz-a] Mary-E John-D send aux letter-A *Hei hasn't read yet the letter that Mary sent to John; ii. [Mirenek Jonii bidali zion eskutitza] the letter that Mary sent to John ez du beraki oraindik irakurri neg aux he yet read

Both sentences are identical but for the order of their constituents, with the effect that in (73i) the pronoun precedes its antecedents while in (73ii) it does not. In the non-configurational hypothesis (73i) is analyzed as ungrammatical by the same Referential Dependency Condition, since berak still c-commands Jon. However, exactly the same principle would rule out (73ii), making the wrong prediction since the sentence is grammatical. In this hypothesis, berak c-commands its antecedent Jon in both (73i) and (73ii), and their different status cannot be explained by the Referential Dependency Condition. The configurational hypothesis, on the other hand, makes use of cross-over considerations for (73i), explaining (73ii) as falling under different circumstances. If the latter is an instance of Topicalization at S-structure, the LF structure of (73ii) is something like (74) under this hypothesis: (74)

r ,[ Np [...

Jonii..,]j r,[ez du beraki vp [oraindik tj irakurri ]]]

Here the trace is not locally A-bound as in (72), but is actually bound by the topic in -A-position; therefore t in (74) is actually a type of variable, rather than PRO, and no Binding violation is involved. Berak does not c-command its antecedent, which occurs in a position adjoined to S, and the RDC is not violated. It would be possible to account for the preceding data within the non-configurational hypothesis, provided some word orders are directly base generated while some others are originated by a rule of Topicalization. If such a rule is accepted, a structure like (74) will also be generated for sentence (73ii), and the grammaticality of the latter will be explained in exactly the same way as in the configurational analysis. Although a rule of Topicalization might be possible in the non-configurational analysis, it would greatly diminish the appeal of an approach whose basic intuition is that all word-order possibilities are directly base generated.

Word Order and Configurations

97

2.2.2.3 Partitives In this section, I will present an argument for the configurational character of Basque grammar based on an account of the distribution of partitives in terms of the ECP. I will argue that partitive phrases include an en^pty quantifier head which is subject to the ECP. Like any-type quantifiers in English, such quantifiers are not moved and hence can only be properly governed by lexical government. This predicts a basic asymmetry between object partitives (properly governed, hence acceptable) and subject partitives (not properly governed), which is shown to correspond to the actual distribution of Basque partitives. A configurational structure like the one posited here for Basque makes some predictions with respect to the applicability of LF principles like ECP. An asymmetry like the one found in the English sentences in (75) can be explained by the ECP. (75)

i. *whOi do you think that t, saw Bill ii. whoi do you think that Bill saw ti iii. whoi do you think ti saw Bill

The trace left by the long wh-movement is properly governed by V in (75ii), but not in (75i), where the local antecedent of the trace in COMP (the trace of COMP to COMP movement) does not c-command the subject position, due' to the branching structure produced by the presence of the overt complementizer that. Where that does not appear, as in (75iii), the subject trace is properly governed by its local antecedent. In a configurational structure all object traces will be properly governed while subject traces may not be so. On the other hand, in a non-configurational structure where all NP's c-command each other and appear at the same 'level', no such asymmetry will occur, since movement from any of the A-positions will leave behind a properly governed trace. The structure of the argument is as follows. First, I will present the Basque partitive construction, discussing its similarities with French and Russian constructions. All of them share a limited distribution and a parallel quantificational interpretation. The quantificational nature of these expressions forms the basis for the two alternative analyses I discuss: Pesetsky's quantifier raising analysis and Kayne's empty quantifier analysis. In the latter, which I show to be more adequate than Pesetsky's, an empty quantifier present in partitives must be properly governed. In a configurational structure the verb properly governs the object, but not the subject. This correctly predicts that only transitive and unaccusative objects will be possible as partitives, while arguments corresponding to ergative subjects are excluded. This prediction is not made by the alternative, non-configurational analysis, where the verb properly governs both subject and object.

98

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

The partitive construction has already been presented in Section 1.4 of Chapter One. The basic data are repeated here for ease of reference: (76)

* Gizon-ik ez zuen saio-a ikusi man-part neg aux performance-A see No man saw the performance

(77)

*Makina-rik ez du funtzionatzen machine-part neg aux work No machine works

(78)

Gizon-ik ez da etorri man-part neg aux come No man has come

(79)

Ez nuen gizon-ik ikusi herri-ko kale-etan neg aux man-part see town-of stree-in I didn't see any man in the streets of the town

These data seem to indicate that the generalization governing the distribution of partitive -(r)ik must be stated in 'ergative' terms: partitive phrases can correspond to absolutive phrases but not to ergative phrases. However, taking the unaccusative analysis of izan predicate arguments as deep objects, the apparent ergative/absolutive asymmetry in these data resolves into a subject/object asymmetry: acceptable transitive object (79) and unaccusative object (78) partitives, versus unacceptable transitive (76) and unergative (77) subjects. Then, partitive phrases can correspond to Dobjects, but not to D-subjects. The partitive construction corresponds rather closely to other constructions in accusative languages, such as pas de partitives in French (Kayne 1981) and genitive of negation in Russian (Pesetsky 1982).19 Both Kayne and Pesetsky analize the data as involving ECP violations of subject partitive-like constructions, though in rather different ways. In what follows, I will try to show that the behavior and distribution of Basque partitives can also be explained by the ECP if a configurational structure is posited. I will also show that the Basque data support Kayne's 'empty quantiflcational category' analysis over Pesetsky's Quantifier Raising (QR) analysis. The data discussed by Pesetsky are parallel to the Basque data. In clauses with sentential (pre-verbal) negation, Russian allows genitive nominals corresponding to objects of transitive verbs (80) and subjects of intransitive verbs (81), but never to subjects of transitive verbs (82):

Word Order and Configurations (80)

Ja ne poludal pis'ma I neg received letter-acc.pl. Ja ne polu£al pisem letter-gen.pl. I did not receive letters/any letter

(81)

Nikakie dokladCiki ne pojavilis' no speaker-nom.pl. neg show up-pl. Nikakix dokladcikov ne pojavilos' -gen -neut. sg. None of the speakers/No speaker showed up

(82)

Studenty ne smotrjat televizor nom.pl. watch-pl •Studentov ne smotrit televizor gen.pl. -sg The students/*Not one student watched T.V.

99

Not all intransitive predicate subjects can appear in the genitive, however. As Pesetsky shows, a restriction applies to the effect that no genitive can correspond to the agentive subject of an intransitive verb. Sentence (81) above, whose subject bears the theme G-role, contrasts with (83), where the predicate assigns the agent 9-role to the subject, ruling out the genitive construction as ungrammatical: one place predicates with agent arguments fall under the unergative, rather than the unaccusative class, and therefore agent intransitive arguments are ungrammatical when they appear in this partitive construction: (83)

ne kusajutsja Takie sobaki such dog-nom.pl. neg bite-pl. ii. *Takix sobax ne kusaetsja -gen.pl. bite-sg. Such dogs/*No such dogs bite

i.

If theme 0-role predicates are analyzed as unaccusative verbs with a single D-structure object argument, an explanation for the construction can be supplied based on the descriptive statement that such genitives may appear only in D-structure object position. S-subjects corresponding to D-structure subjects will be ruled out. As discussed above, the same generalization holds for Basque if verbs selecting izan auxiliary are syntactically unaccusative, that is, if they only 0-mark an argument in D-object position. Before evaluating Pesetsky's and Kayne's analyses, I will provide further details on Basque partitives that will be relevant to the discussion. In

100 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque addition to sentential negation, this type of partitive may also appear in other contexts like the yes/no questions below, which show the same distribution as their counterparts in negative contexts in (76-79):20 (84)

Arrain-ik ikusi duzu ibai honetan? fish-part see aux river this-in Have you seen any fish in this river?

(85)

Gizon-ik atera al da etxe horretatik? man-part go out Q aux house that-from Has any man come out from that house?

(86)

*Pertsona-rik ulertu du nire azalpena? person-part understand aux my explanation Has any person understood my explanation?

Morphologically, the partitive case has one single indefinite form, as opposed to other cases, which show singular, plural and indefinite forms. As for verb agreement, since there is no absolutive noun in these sentences (the phrase that would correspond to the absolutive is marked partitive), the auxiliary will take the unmarked third person singular form of the absolutive marker as it takes the third person singular form in the Russian examples shown above. Semantically, a key aspect of partitive-like constructions in Basque, Russian and French is that they involve some quantificational interpretation. Sentences with partitive -(r)ik differ from their counterparts with absolutive nominals in that the former, but not the latter, are given an indefinite quantificational interpretation, both in negative and in interrogative contexts. The type of quantifier involved seems to vary between universal and existential, the same as any phrases in English, the latter quantification being common in negative and interrogative contexts. Thus, the interpretation of sentences (78) and (79) above, with the negative quantifier, would be something like (87) and (88): (87)

I 3 x, x man, x come (=78)

(88) —l

3 x, x man, I saw x (=79)

Negation has always scope over the existential quantifier in these sentences. Similarly, in interrogative contexts like those found in sentences (84-86), the existential quantifier seems to be required in their interpretation. Corresponding to (84) and (85) we have the following:

Word Order and Configurations (89)

? 3 x, x fish, you see x in this river (=84)

(90)

? 3 x, x man, x come out from the house (=85)

101

However, a universal reading occurs in other contexts where partitives may be used, including 'affective predicate' complements and superlative phrases: (91)

Ijito-rik hor bizi-tzea zoroa iruditzen zait gipsy-part there live-nom crazy seem aux It seems to me crazy for any gipsy to live there

(92)

Hau-xe duk estilo-rik aurreratu-en-a this-emp have style-part advaced-sup-A This is the most advanced style

Their interpretation is shown in the following representations: 21 (93)

V x, x gipsy, x to live there...

(94)

V x, x style, more (this advanced than x)

Turning now to providing explanatory accounts for partitive constructions, Pesetsky's analysis tries to provide an explanation based on the ECP principle. Noting that certain Russian quantifiers govern genitive case, he analyzes the genitive phrase as including an empty quantifier which is the head of the phrase, following the analysis of Kayne (1981). In his analysis, the quantifier is the head of a quantifier phrase which is subject to May's rule of Quantifier Raising (QR). After the application of QR to the quantifier phrase in object position, we get an LF representation like (95): (95)

r .[

QPi ,„[ NP [ V [e]i ]]]

where the trace -A-bound by the quantifier adjoined to S is properly governed by V. However, movement out of the subject position is also allowed by ECP. In (96) (96)

,..[ QPi,..[ [e]i VP ]]

the subject trace is antecedent governed by the binder in adjunction position. In order to account for the asymmetry, Pesetsky devices a system to disqualify QP in (96) as proper binder, and hence to eliminate antecedent

102 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque government of these subject traces left by QR: if QP is not a proper binder here, the structure with subject QP's would be ruled out as desired. To achieve this effect, his analysis is based on the assumptions that categorial selection (c-selection) is independent from 0-role selection and that trace theory can be independently derived from other principles of UG without any specification. As a consequence of his first assumption, if the Projection Principle refers only to 0-role subcategorization but not to c-selection, although at D-structure we will have a representation of the 0-role subcategorization frame of any verb, the constituents to which the 0-roles are assigned need not be of the category specified in the verb's categorial selection information. It is only at LF that these complements belonging to particular categories have to be present (and by the Projection Principle, the 0-roles assigned to them). By the second assumption, it follows that gaps are freely indexed with any constituent, whether sharing its category feature or not. Independent principles will rule out most cases produced by this free gap-indexing mechanism. Assuming then that nothing prevents an empty category X from being coindexed with a c-commanding phrase of category Y, we can therefore co-index a QP with a gap [e] of category NP rather than QP. In this case, if we assume that proper binding is defined as in (97), incorporating condition (iii), then QP would not be a proper binder of the trace: (97)

a properly binds ¡3 iff i. a and fi are coindexed ii. a c-commands P iii. a is a possible antecedent of fi

where for a to be a possible antecedent of ft they must share number, gender and categorial features. By means of condition (iii), QP is not a proper binder of the trace in subject position since, as they have distinct categorial features, QP is not a possible antecedent of an EC of category NP. Then QP in A-bar position after adjunction does not properly bind the trace, the latter violating the ECP principle. At LF, c-selection of the verb is met since the traces are NP's, although at D-structure, and at S-structure, before QR has applied, c-selection is not (and need not be) met by the QP. In the case of Basque, after QR applies, the quantifier phrase adjoined to the clausal node is not a possible antecedent and the trace is not properly governed in subject position, while object positions of both polyadic edun verbs and monadic unaccusative verbs will always be properly governed by the verb and QR will apply without any ECP violation being involved. There are some problems with this analysis, however. If partitive phrases are like any other quantifier phrase, we should expect to find the same

Word Order and Configurations

103

types of scope ambiguities in clauses with more than one quantifier. Thus, in the following sentence, either quantifier may be interpreted as having wide scope over the other, allowing the two LF structures after QR: (99)

Alkemista guzti-ek hiru substantzia erabiltzen zituzten alchemist all-E pi three substance use aux All of the alchemists used three substances

(100)

i. ii.

all x, x alchemist, three y, y substance, x used y three x, x substance, all y, y alchemist, y used x

On the other hand, there is one single reading for a sentence with two quantifiers where one of them is the partitive phrase. For sentence (101), the only interpretation is as shown, with wide scope of the universal quantifier over the partitive: (101)

Alkemista guzti-ek lortu al zuten urre-rik all-E pi. get Q aux gold-part Did all of the alchemists get any gold?

(102) ?, for all x, x alchemist, 3 y, y gold, x got y The same situation obtains with the negative operator, both in Basque and in Russian. For a sentence with sentential negation and a quantifier, like (103), we have the interpretations shown: (103)

a. b.

Ez ziren lau ikasle eskola-ra etorri neg aux four student class-to come Four students did not come to class i) not, x = four students, x come to class ii) x = four students, not, x come to class

In (i) negation has wide scope over the quantifier, and the interpretation is that it was not the case that four students came to class (ten came instead); in (ii), with the quantifier having scope over negation, the interpretation would be that for four students, it is not the case that they came to class (they went to the cinema instead). On the other hand, the only interpretation of a sentence with both negation and partitive, like the ones in (78) and (79), is the one shown in (87) and (88), with wide scope of negation of the partitive. That is, when we substitute a partitive phrase for the quantifier phrase above, only one interpretation is available, as in (104):

104 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque (104)

a. b.

Ikasle-rik ez zen eskola-ra etorri student-part neg aux class-to come No student came to class i. not, 3 x, x student, x come to class ii. * 3 x, x student, not, x come to class

In addition to this problem, this analysis seems to make the wrong predictions with respect to the variable left behind by the movement of the partitive phrase at LF. If QR actually applies to these phrases creating an operator-variable chain at LF, the variable should display the same type of properties of other variables at that level. In particular, it should obey general principles like the BP, which has among its consequences that operators cannot bind more than one variable. It is then predicted that application of QR to partitive phrases will leave behind a trace with the same coindexing properties as traces in cross-over structures. Thus, in (105), the phrase gizon gazterik 'any young man/youn men' should not be interpretable as coreferential with the pronoun berak 'he', since at LF the operator will bind both the trace and the pronoun with the variable interpretation, violating BP. (105)

Berak maite duen lurra uzteak ez du gizon gazterik izutzen he love aux country leave neg aux man young scare To leave the country that he loves does not frighten any young man

In fact the sentence is grammatical in the intended interpretation, indicating that the analysis is not adequate. In this sense, the status of Basque partitive phrases is similar to that of any phrases in English, which do not seem to behave like other quantifiers and are best analized as names not moved at LF (see Hornstein (1984), Aoun (1985) and Aoun and Hornstein (1985) for any). Then the lack of cross-over effects as shown in (104) is directly explained. Notice that while the subject/object asymmetry is easily explained on ECP grounds, the QR analysis destroys the proper government asymmetry between properly governed objects and non-properly governed subjects by creating a local antecedent for subject partitives that can also properly govern their traces. Once the subject is raised by QR, the trace left in subject position is also properly governed by antecedent government. This forces Pesetsky to reformulate the definition of proper binding and to introduce a number of auxiliary assumptions that somehow 'undo' the consequences of applying QR. Kayne's analysis, on the other hand, is based on fewer assumptions, and is compatible with the observations made above which show that

Word Order and Configurations

105

the partitive phrase is not subject to QR. Here it is the empty category corresponding to the empty quantifier that is itself subject to ECP requirements. The presence of an empty quantifier is justified not only by the quantificational-like interpretation at the logical level of partitive phrases, but also by the fact that partitive phrases share the morphological characteristics of other (overt) quantifier-specified phrases. Thus, overt quantifiers in Russian govern genitive case, that is, the same case for which these partitives are marked in Russian, while French quantifiers often govern the preposition de occurring also in pas de partitive expressions: beaucoup de 'many', trop de 'too many'. Consequently, partitive phrases are Quantifier Phrases with an empty quantifier head. If partitive phrases include an empty quantifier category which is subject to ECP, the French data in (106) and (107) follow directly: (106)

Jean ne voudrait pas que tu boives de bière John (neg.) would not like that you drink (of) beer

(107) *Jean ne voudrait pas que de bière lui coule dessus John (neg.) would not like that (of) beer spill on him The [e] quantifier in QP[ [e] Np[ de bière]] is not properly governed in the subject position, but it is so in the object position, explaining the acceptability of (106) but not of (107). Although the use of -(r)ik partitive with overt quantifiers is diminishing in Basque, it is still possible, as shown in the following sentences: (108)

Gizon-ik nahikoa 3 etorri da man-part quite a fewcome aux Quite a few men have come

(109)

Eskerr-ik asko thank-part many Many thanks/Thank you

(110)

Hizkuntza-rik gehien-ek erabiltzen dute hitz hori language-part most-E pi use aux word that Most languages use that word

An empty quantifier analysis is therefore well-motivated for Basque too. Partitive constructions supply an argument in favor of the configurational structure of Basque. Empty quantifiers are not phonologically realized elements and therefore need not be case marked. Partitive phrases can therefore remain in object position in unaccusative structures without ha-

106 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque ving to move to subject position to receive case. Since these quantifiers do not move, they do not undergo QR and always remain in their D-position. Assuming a configurational structure for Basque nothing special needs be said to explain the distribution of partitives: only object partitives will be possible, since their EC (the empty quantifier) is properly governed by the verb. Subject partitives are not properly governed by V. They can't be properly governed by antecedent government because they don't undergo QR, unlike what is assumed in Pesetsky's analysis. As a consequence, the subject/object asymmetry is preserved. In the unaccusative analysis of izan verbs, the partitive quantifier phrase need not move to subject position, since, under the Case Filter approach, empty elements like the empty quantifier head, need not be case marked. Then, all partitive D-objects are in their D-structure position when ECP is checked. A non-configurational hypothesis would require some extra mechanism on top of a general principle like ECP which is independently needed in the grammar. One might try to account for partitive distribution within the nonconfigurational approach on the basis of Chomsky's (1986b) revised version of proper government. There, proper government includes antecedent government, as before, but 'lexical' government by V is made dependent on 9-government. V no longer properly governs anything it governs, but only phrases it governs and assigns 0-role to. Then, in a non-configurational, flat structure, one might claim that only object phrases are properly governed, but not subject phrases, even though the verb governs both. The reason is that only object phrases would be assigned 0-role by V. But notice that this analysis greatly undermines the non-configurationality approach, since it builds in some type of configurations based on 0-role assignment into the flat syntactic structure. In such structure the verb should properly govern both subject and object, since in both cases V is a sister constituent of the NP and 0-marks it. It is only in configurational structures that V does not (directly) 0-mark the subject, since the latter is not a sister of the former. Maintaining that in a flat structure V properly governs one particular sister NP node but not the other implies building in a configuration, and actually providing a configurational account for partitives. Before turning to another argument for the configurational structure of Basque, I will add some considerations which, although marginal to the issue of configurationality, are important to complete the description of Basque partitives. Notice in the first place that the ECP analysis is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the acceptability of partitive phrases. Any adequate description of these phrases will have to mention the particular contexts where partitive phrases may appear. In Ortiz de Urbina (1985) an attempt is made at defining this domain as an asymmetric c-command relationship between the licensing element and the partitive.

Word Order and Configurations

107

Assuming NEG to appear in INFL position, subject partitives are ruled out since the licensing negative element c-commands and is c-commanded by the partitive, while object partitives are c-commanded by but do not c-command the licensing element. This particular relation between partitive and negative is not enough to account by itself for these constructions, however. This can be observed in sentences like (111), where the partitive phrase occurs within the affirmative complement clause of verbs like uste izan 'to think': (111)

i.

Ez dut uste mamu-rik ikusi duzun-ik neg aux think ghost-part see aux-part I don't think you have seen any ghosts ii. *Ez dut uste gizon-ik mamu hori ikusi duen-ik man-part that aux-part I don't think any man has seen that ghost

As in other languages, this predicate is transparent for 'negative transportation' type of phenomena and the licensing ez occurs in the upper clause, while the partitive occurs in the complement. Both subject and object NP's in the embedded clause are in the domain of the negative, asymmetrically c-commanded by it; however, only the object complement can appear in the partitive case, duplicating the set of contexts occurring in simple clauses. Therefore, the ECP is still required to explain subject/ object asymmetries, along with the requirement that the partitive phrase be in the c-command domain of the licensing elements. Therefore partitives can occur in properly governed positions in the c-command domain of interrogative and negative operators. This generalization explains all the cases studied above. It also applies to other cases like the ones shown in (112-4), where partitives occur in the sentential (c-commanded) complements of excessive adjectives (112), some affective predicates (113), and postpositional particles like gabe 'without': (112)

i. ii.

(113)

i.

Pobre-egi-a da etxe berri-rik eros-teko poor-too-A is house new-part buy-purp He is too poor to buy a new house Argi-egi-a da halako-rik egi-teko intelligent-too-A is such-part do-purp She is too intelligent to do such a thing Sinesgaitz-a da ibai hon-etan arrain-ik aurki-tze-a unbelievable -A river this-in fish-part find-nom-A It is unbelievable to find any fish in this river

108 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque ii.

(114)

Ukatu egin du ardo-rik eda-te-a deny do aux wine-part drink-nom-A He has denied to have drunk any wine

Hitz-ik esan gabe joan zen word-part say without go aux He left without saying any word

The fact that negation has always scope over the partitive, which is left unexplained in the QR analysis, follows directly from the one presented here. If partitives do not move and scope relations are expressed in terms of c-command, as generally assumed, the negative operator in INFL will always c-command the partitive phrase in object position. In a movement analysis like Pesetsky's, QR can apply in any order to either of the elements, generating both (115i) and (115ii): (115)

i.

ii. part part

N

...

I" neg

Here, only NEG is adjoined to I", and the partitive is left in its original place, so that the latter will never have scope over the former. After this aside, I turn to providing further arguments in favor of a configurational analysis of Basque. 2.2.2.4 Reciprocal anaphors22'23 Related evidence indicates that, under the assumption that Binding theory applies at S-structure, configurationality must also be assumed for that level. That this assumption is warranted can be shown by observing the effect of LF movement rules on the c-commanding relations of anaphoric elements which by Binding theory requirements must be c-commanded by their antecedents. Thus, Principle A of Binding states that anaphors have to be bound in their governing category, hence that there must be a c-commanding antecedent in that domain binding them. Then, if the anaphoric expression is contained in a phrase that is raised and adjoined to I" at LF but not at S-structure, a situation arises where the anaphor is 'above' the antecedent and hence the latter does not c-command it. If Binding requirements are checked at S-structure prior to movement of the phrase containing the anaphor, the prediction is that such structure will be well-formed provided that at S-structure the anaphor is bound, regardless of the structural changes brought about by any later LF rule. If Binding applies at LF, on the other hand, the structure will be illformed.

Word Order and Configurations

109

One such rule applying at LF is Quantifier Raising. Basque quantiñers like zenbait 'several', guztiak 'all' etc., would be assigned scope at LF by adjoining them to I" and creating an operator-variable pair that corresponds to the logical expression describing their value. Thus, the LF representation of (116) would be (117), similar to the logical expression (118): (116)

(117) (118)

Armada-k eskubide guzti-ak ukatzen ditu army-E right all-A pi deny aux The army denies all rights [ eskubide guztiak; [ armadak t¡ ukatzen ditu] r ,] for all x, x rights, the army denies x

The trace left behind in (117) is correctly predicted to behave like other traces in producing weak cross-over effects. Thus, consider a sentence like (119), where the possessive haren does not c-command inor as in the examples discussed above in the text: (119)

Ha-ren ama-k ez du inor maite he-gen mother-E neg aux nobody love His mother does not love anyone

The only interpretation available here is one where haren does not have a variable-like interpretation and is not coindexed with the variable: (120)

for all x, x person, his mother not love x

(121) *for all x, x person, x'mother not love x The impossibility of the reading in (121) is not related to cross-over effects but rather to the fact that haren in subject position requires an obviative interpretation with respect to the object quantifier, the same as haren in an object phrase like (65i) requires an obviative interpretation with respect to the subject. However, when a proximate intensive possessive is substituted in (119), as in (122), the interpretation in (121) is not still available: (122)

Bere amak ez du inor maite

The BP can explain these data if the quantifier is assumed to move at LF and to be adjoined to I", leaving a coindexed trace behind: the quantifier operator binds then two variables, one left by Move-a and the other one

110 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque the possessive, and the sentence is ruled out under that interpretation. This contrasts with a sentence like (123), where the quantifier occurs in subject position: bere is not a variable here, since it is not locally operator bound, and the quantifier binds one single variable, without any violation of BP being involved: (123)

Inor-k ez du bere ama maite nobody-E neg aux his(int) mother love Nobody loves his mother

(124)

for all x, x person, not x loves x's mother

As shown, the relevant interpretation is possible here. Therefore quantifier phrases behave like such operators as wh-phrases and focused elements, as indicated above. Consider then a sentence like (125) where the anaphor elkar 'each other' is contained in a quantified phrase: (125)

i.

Etsai-ek elkarr-en hiri guzti-ak erre zituzten enemy-E recip-gen city all-A pi burn aux The enemies burnt down all of each other's cities ii. j felkarreni hiri guztiak r[etsaiek, t erre zituzten]] city all enemy burn aux iii. for all x,x each other's city, the enemies burnt down x

In (125ii), the reciprocal anaphor elkar contained in the quantified phrase is free, since etsaiek 'the enemies' does not c-command it after QR has raised the quantified phrase, adjoining it to I". However, the sentence can be considered grammatical, which is explained only if Binding applies at S-structure rather than at LF. Sentences like (125), where elkar is a genitive modifying a noun phrase, are often felt to be too complex by native speakers, who often make use of the more transparent bata bestearen 'the one of the other' expression to convey that meaning. In fact, Salaburu (1986) rules them out on the basis of examples like (126): (126)

i.

elkarr-en ondoan egin dute lo Jon eta Miren-ek -gen beside do aux sleep John and Mary-E John and Mary have slept by each other ii. *elkarr-en ohe-etan egin dute lo Jon eta Miren-ek -gen bed-in John and Mary have slept in each other's beds iii. Jon eta Miren-ek bat-ak beste-aren ohe-an egin dute lo -E one-E other-gen bed-in John and Mary have slept one in the bed of the other

Word Order and Configurations

111

Elkarren modifies a postposition (which, morphologically, is just a specialized noun marked in the inesive here) in (126i), and an inesive common noun in (126ii), and only the former is acceptable for many speakers. Still, elkarren is acceptable in other contexts modifying a noun, especially where the latter involves an idea of reciprocity: (127)

i.

ii.

elkarr -en antza handi-a dute -gen resemblance big-A have They resemble each other very much ('They have a great resemblance of each other') elkarr -en lagun handi-ak dira -gen friend big -A are They are (each other's) big friends

In any event, even if the Basque data are somewhat obscure, the argument goes through in other languages. In English, for instance, the gloss in (125) is fully acceptable. Unless the level of application of BT is parametrized, it has to be allowed to apply at least at S-structure to account for these data (see May (1985) for some evidence that it has to apply at LF). Assuming this hypothesis, a configurational structure makes different predictions from a non-configurational one with respect to the distribution of subject and object anaphors. In 1.2.3 some descriptive statements were made about anaphors like elkar 'each other': they are not possible with ergative marking (*elkarrek) and they are possible in the absolutive case {elkar) only where it is an object anaphor bound by a subject, but not when it is an unaccusative deep object. If Basque is non-configurational at S-structure, the structure of both (128i) and (128ii) below would be as in (129): (128)

i.

Gudari-ek elkar hiltzen zuten soldier-E recip-A kill aux The soldiers killed each other ii. *Gudari-ak elkarr-ek hiltzen zituen/zituzten -A -E *Each other killed the soldiers

112 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque (129)

S(=I") NP gudari-ek soldier-E (*elkarr-ek recip-E

elkar recip-A gudari-ak soldiers-A)

Something must be added to prevent (128ii) while allowing (128i), perhaps some restriction in terms of grammatical functions: both subject and object c-command each other and therefore the anaphor in (128ii) is bound by an antecedent in its governing category (S), so no Binding violation should be involved. If a configurational structure is assumed, on the other hand, the descriptive statement above follows directly from the theory without further stipulations, given that subject/object asymmetries are directly reflected in structural terms: (130)

S(=I")

gudariek (*elkarrek)

elkar (gudariak) In (130) elkar, but not elkarrek, is bound as required by principle A. The absolutive transitive object contrasts here with unaccusative D-object anaphors in a sentence like (131i), opposed to the grammatical (131 ii): (131)

i. * Elkar joan dira lagun-ekin recip-A go aux friend-with •Each other has gone with the friends ii. Lagun-ak elkarr-ekin joan dira friend-A recip-with go aux The friends have gone together (with each other)

Word Order and Configurations

113

Assuming PP's to occur within the same projection of V as objects, the oblique elkarrekin in (ii) is c-commanded and bound by lagunak 'the friends', the unaccusative D-object, while elkar in (i) is not c-commanded by the NP in PP. We conclude that binding constraints on anaphors require Basque to have a basic asymmetric configuration at S-structure where such constraints are tested. 2.2.2.5 Bound pronouns Some restrictions on the appearence of bound pronouns also indicate the existence of a configurational structure in Basque. An interesting characteristic of pronouns is that they can be interpreted as logical variables when they have a quantificational antecedent. Thus, in (132), the possessive beren could have a coreferential and a variable interpretation, shown in (133i) and (133ii), respectively: (132)

Langile guzti-ek ber-en ugazaba maite dute worker all-E they-gen boss love aux All workers love their boss

(133)

i. ii.

V x , x worker, x loves their boss V x, x worker, x loves x's boss

In the coreferential interpretation (133i), beren is not a variable and it refers to the whole set of workers. Then the expression beren ugazaba has one single referent, say Mr. Olarra. Where beren is interpreted as a logical variable, the referent of beren, and hence of beren ugazaba, varies for each element of the set of workers quantified over by guztiek. Since bere is a variable x, its value will change for each of the possible values of the other variable bound by the universal quantifier, and each worker is assumed to love his own boss. The interpretation is shown in (133ii). The variable interpretation of pronouns (the bound pronoun interpretation) is subject to some restrictions that are interesting from the point of view of configurational structures. Reinhart (1983) shows that bound pronouns can only appear in the c-command domain of quantifiers, as shown in (134-5): (134)

i.

The secretary who worked for each of the managers despises him ii. *each x:x manager, the secretary who works for x despises x.

(135)

i. ii.

Each of the managers exploits the secretary that works for him each x:x manager, x exploits the secretary that works for x.

114 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque In (134) the QP each of the managers does not c-command him and the pronoun cannot be construed as a variable: it must refer to one particular individual, but not to each of the managers. This bound interpretation is possible only in (135) where him is c-commanded by the subject QP. Notice that the level where this c-command relation has to hold is Sstructure: in (134) the QP will be assigned scope at LF and adjoined to I", where it does c-command the pronoun. After QR applies to the QP, the c-command asymmetry that explains the difference between (134) and (135) is lost, and therefore the condition must be fulfilled at S-structure. Similar restrictions seem to hold for Basque too. Compare (136), where bere 'his' can have a bound interpretation, with (137): (136)

i. ii.

(137)

astojabe bakoitza-k bere asto-a astintzen du donkey owner each-E his donkey-A beat aux Each donkey owner beats his donkey for each x, x donkey owner, x beats x's donkey

i.

beren astoa-k astojabe asko astintzen du their donkey-E donkey-owner many(A) beat aux Their donkey beats many donkey owners ii. for many x, x donkey owner, their donkey beats x iii.??for many x, x donkey owner, x's donkey beats x

In (137), where the quantifier has the object grammatical function, beren receives a group interpretation: the possessive expression refers to one single donkey owned by several people. The bound pronoun interpretation where each donkey beats its owner is more difficult to get.24 Given the generalization that bound pronouns can occur if c-commanded at S-structure by a quantificational antecedent, the data follow directly from this generalization if Basque is assumed to have a configurational structure at S-s: subjects c-command objects, and hence allow bound interpretations of object pronouns, but objects do not c-command subjects, and object quantifiers like the one in (137) cannot licence a variable interpretation of pronouns in subject position, explaining (137iii). If Basque is a non-configurational language at S-s, subjects and objects c-command each other and this asymmetry, like the others described above, is left unexplained. 2.2.2.6 Counterarguments I have concentrated up to now on some asymmetries between subjects and objects which warrant a configurational analysis of Basque. Although the evidence for this analysis is rather strong, there are some loose ends that demand explanation. In this section, I will focus on the type of

Word Order and Configurations

115

counterevidence to the claim that Basque is a configurational language presented in Rebuschi (1984, 1986, to appear a,b). Before turning to what I consider to be his most interesting argument, based on Binding Theory, I will briefly review some of the evidence based on constituency tests. 2.2.2.6.1 Constituency tests Rebuschi (to appear b) argues that neither coordination nor deletion processes affect VP's in Basque, and that this language also lacks VP proforms like English so, concluding that this follows if Basque actually lacks the VP configuration. Rebuschi's claim is not that VP-like coordination structures are not to be found in Basque. In fact, a typical Basque coordinated structure was described in section 1.2.4: one of the conjuncts appears in the neutral citation form of the verb (that is, without INFL marks, strongly suggesting the presence of a VP node), while the other conjunct bears the inflection, whether tense and person markers (138i) or 'tenseless inflection' like nominalizing affix and case markers (138ii):25 (138)

i. ii.

Semea eskola-n utzi eta etxe-ra joan zen son-A school-at leave and home-to go aux (S)he left the son at school and went home Ondartza-ra joan eta berehala ur-etan sar-tze-a beach-to go and immediately water-in enter-nom-A erabaki genuen decide aux We decided to go to the beach and to jump into the water immediately

However, as Rebuschi observes, since, apparently, this coordination type can also be used with sentential conjuncts, any purported VP-coordination case can be also interpreted as IP coordination, with one of the conjuncts having an empty subject (PRO/pro). The VP coordination analysis is therefore possible, but not necessary. Other, apparently more exotic types of coordination in Basque do not present direct counterevidence for the configurational analysis either, as Rebuschi himself concedes, and are in fact similar to the ones found in uncontroversially configurational languages like Spanish. To illustrate, observe the type of structure found in (139): (139)

i.

ii.

Ni-k baba-k eta Jon-ek ogi-a jaten d-it-u-gu I-E bean-A and John-E bread-A eat 3A-pl-ukan-lpE '(we) eat I beans and John bread' I eat beans and John bread Comimos yo patatas y Juan pan (we) ate I potatoes and John bread

116 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque Rebuschi notes that these distributive pairs 'seem to function (discursively) as a coordinated pair of Topic + Focus', a type of coordination (if indeed it is to be analyzed as such) difficult to express naturally in any frame, conflgurational or not. (Rebuschi (1986) explicitely refuses to propose a syntactic structure for the French counterpart). Note that the type of evidence offered by Rebuschi is negative. Clearly, lack of positive evidence for the conflgurational approach in this respect does not constitute positive evidence for the non-configurational analysis, nor counterevidence for the former. The contention that VP nodes are not conjoined does not necessarily show that they do not exist, and this 'evidence' is compatible with either analysis. 2.2.2.6.2 Intensive (reflexive) possessives As noted in section 2.2.2.1, possessives have two different shapes in Basque: the neutral form nire 'my', zure 'your', haren 'his', gure 'our', zuen 'your, pi', haien 'their', and the intensive (also called sometimes reflexive following Linschmann and Schuchardt, who first glimpsed the rule-governed nature of their distribution) neure 'my', zeure 'your', bere 'his', geure 'our', zeuen 'your, pi' and bere 'their'. In the classical dialect of Basque (XVIIth century Labourdin) as illustrated in the classical writer Axular, intensive forms were used whenever the referent of the possessive occurs in the same clause as the possessive and is one of the arguments that can be marked on the verb (E, A, D), as shown in the following examples: (140)

i.

ni-k neure kotxe-a utzi d-io-t I-E my(int) car-A leave 3A-3sD-lsE I have left him my car ii. neure aita-k ni-ri utzi d-it my(int) father-E I-D leave 3A-lsD-(3sE) My father has left it to me iii. nire aita-k utzi d-u my(neut) father-E leave 3A-ukan-(3sE) My father has left it iv. bere\ ama-k Joni ikusi d-u his(int) mother-E John-A see 3A-ukan-(3sE) His mother has seen John v. Jon-eki bere, ama ikusi d-u John-E his(int) mother-A see 3A-ukan-(3sE) John has seen his mother vi. Joneki harenj ama ikusi du his(neut) John has seen his mother

Word Order and Configurations

117

The referent of the first singular possessive ( T ) is the ergative nominal in (140i) and the dative nominal in (140ii); since these are marked on the verb, the intensive form is used. But in (140iii) the verb does not include any first person marking, so the neutral form nire 'my' shows up. Similarly, in (140iv,v), the referent of the third person possessive (John) is the absolutive object in (140iv) and the ergative subject in (140v), both of which are cross-referenced in the inflection, and hence the intensive form is used. In (140vi), the referent of the neutral possessive haren 'his' cannot refer to the subject (John): its antecedent must be some other person. A further detail should be borne in mind: the same distribution is observed in tenseless clauses with no overt auxiliary marking. This distribution has been largely lost in present day Basque, and it only subsists in Lower Navarrese (not for all speakers, though) and occasionally in some eastern speech areas and standard normative practice for the third person pair haren/bere. The discussion will deal with the analysis of the classical dialect, the assumption being that any conclusions about its (non-)configurationality may be extended to present day Basque. Although some qualification will be added later, the situation can be summarized as follows: the antecedent of an intensive possessive element must be a clausemate absolutive, ergative or dative nominal. The crucial cases are those illustrated in (140ii,iv), where the possessive is included in the subject NP and its antecedent is one of the verbal objects. A possible analysis of the distribution of intensive possessives, and the approach taken by Rebuschi, is to identify them as anaphors, since they share with the latter elements the need for a clausemate antecedent (i.e., an antecedent within their governing category, normally, their tensed or nominalized clause). As anaphors, they have to abide by Principle A of BT. But since, as shown in (140), bere in subject position can be coreferential with the absolutive or dative object, the latter must be able to c-command the former in order to bind it. This is possible if Basque has a nonconfigurational structure where subjects and objects c-command each other. Then, as expected, subjects can bind object anaphors, but objects can also bind subjects. The latter possibility is excluded in a configurational structure, where objects do not c-command (and hence cannot bind), the subject. Analyzing intensive possessives as anaphors will make their distribution accountable in terms of BT if Basque is non-configurational. But while solving this problem, the analysis has the undesirable consequence of creating new ones precisely with the core cases BT strives to account for: as shown in the preceding sections, non-possessive pronouns like bera 'he' and anaphors like elkar 'each other' behave as expected according to BT and with the subject/object asymmetries that a configurational analysis entails. In dealing with 'symmetric' bere and 'asymmetric' bera, elkar,

118 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque Rebuschi follows L. Maracz's proposal to account for asymmetries at the LS (Lexical Structure) level (see, for example, Maracz (1987)), an enriched version of the standard lexical structure including, for instance, argument structure information for verbs. Basically, BT would be checked at a configurational LS level for regular pronouns and anaphors, while intensive possessives would be checked at the standard (non-configurational) level usually assumed, say S-structure. On the scant evidence of here, this move is not very illuminating for Basque, since it simply shifts the level where asymmetries ( = configurations) are accounted for from the standard level of representation (D- and S-structure) to another enriched level of representation. Rebuschi (to appear b) is careful to point out that Basque is a 'non-configurational' language only if this term is understood as 'having at least some non-configurational level of representation' (namely, D- and S-structure in his analysis), but the claim is not that Basque lacks subject/ object asymmetries. This usage of the term 'non-configurational' is quite different from the one in Hale (1983) and even Kiss (1985,1987) for Hungarian, which involves the absence of asymmetries at all levels and which I am claiming is untenable for Basque. Maracz's approach to account for mixed types of languages showing both symmetric and asymmetric distribution patterns is interesting, as Horvath (1987) points out, if asymmetries are found in all and only those phenomena where general theoretical principles predict LS to be relevant. Otherwise LS becomes a rather unexplanatory dumping site for asymmetries. In trying to justify along these lines the lexical nature of elkar anaphors, Rebuschi points out that this anaphor does not agree as expected taking into account its reference: it is always cross-marked in the verb by means of a third person singular marker, even though it may refer to a first, second or third person plural antecedent. Thus, in (128i), repeated below, the verb shows third person singular absolutive agreement, even though the antecedent of elkar is a plural element: (128)

Gudari-ek elkar hiltzen z-u-te-n soldier-E recip-A kill 3A-ei/w«-3pE-pst The soldiers killed each other

Still, a mismatch between the referential and agreement properties of unchanging anaphors is far from being incompatible with a configurational analysis of anaphors, and, in essence, it is the same phenomenon observed in the English translation, where the anaphor does not have any plural morpheme (*each others). Returning to intensive possessives, any BT which recognizes only two types of objects will run into trouble when different types of pronouns or anaphors are brought into consideration, and a different path of research

Word Order and Configurations

119

could seek to provide a more comprehensive theory of binding. Actually, cases of referential elements whose distribution does not directly fit into any of the two main categories recognized by standard BT are not uncommon (see Bickerton (1987) and Iatridou (1986)). Before the notion of 'BT Compatibility' was introduced in Chomsky (1986a), possessives were just another example of the same general problem: they could be bound in their governing category, hence they are not regular pronouns (141i), and could be free in their governing category, hence they are not regular anaphors (141ii): (141)

i. ii.

Johni did not recognize his; dog Hisi friends could not find any good present for Johni

A study of the distribution of his own, a kind of intensive possessive, should also prove interesting in this respect. With regard to Basque bere, one possible path to explore would be to allow intensive possessives to be bound with the nominal feature bundles in INFL, since the antecedent must be one of the elements that can be marked in it. Tenseless nominalized clauses, where the same distribution obtains, would then have to be assumed to contain some type of inflection, an assumption not groundless in Basque, where, as I will show in 3.3.1, a nominal INFL which assigns case in the same way as in tensed clauses has to be posited. The deep connection between intensive possessives and inflection can also be observed in the fact that, as noted in Euskaltzaindia (1985), in coordinate structures like (142) the neutral form is used, even though the antecedent of the possessive is a clausemate absolutive: (142)

i.

ii.

Jon; eta hareni(*bere) lagun-ak ez ziren ongi and his(neut) friend-A not aux well konpontzen get along John and his friends did not get along well ...zeren orduan zeure etsai-a... eta deabru-a ere since then your(int) enemy-Aand devil-A too garaitzen bai-t-it-u-tzu win comp-3A-pl-ukan-2sE ...since then you win over your enemy and the devil too

In (142ii), the possessive in the first conjunct is intensive because the verb includes a second person marker -zu which serves as its antecedent. If an explanation based on coindexing with INFL is proposed, the data in (142i) follow directly without need for further complications: what is marked in INFL is not the third person singular mark for 'John', but the third

120 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque person plural mark for 'John and his friends'. The fact that the antecedent of intensive pronouns must be one of the three arguments with which the Basque verb agrees lends some support to this analysis. Still, the argument is considerably weakened by the fact (pointed out by L. Rizzi, p.c.) that, quite generally, conjuncts do not seem to c-command each other, since anaphors within a conjunct cannot be bound by an antecedent located in the other (compare, for instance, the ungrammaticality of English *My parents and each other's friends left). I have just outlined one possible configurational analysis of this particularly interesting set of intensive pronouns, brought to our attention by Rebuschi. The configurationality debate can benefit from the evidence derived from still poorly understood areas of Basque syntax such as superiority conditions, possibilities of extraction, parasitic gaps, etc. I have tried to show that a strict non-configurational approach fails to account for many of the subject/object asymmetries that Basque exhibits. Although a mixed approach like the one proposed by Maracz may well be adequate in some languages if it provides principled explanations of where asymmetries might be found, the evidence for such an analysis in Basque is rather scarce.

2.3 AN ANALYSIS OF BASQUE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE

In the preceding sections, I have provided evidence that supports a configurational analysis of Basque syntactic structure. A series of subject/ object asymmetries have been presented that justify the existence of the type of asymmetry in tree structure that the node VP introduces. I will therefore assume that there is a V" node in Basque, right headed, that includes 'internal' arguments such as complements and subcategorized elements in general and excludes the 'external' argument, the subject.26 In what follows, I will provide a basic sketch of what I believe to be the basic structure of Basque. The following two chapters will build on this basis, exploring further the structure of INFL and C projections in Basque. The claim of this chapter has been that 'free' word order phenomena in Basque do not stem from a marked non-configurational structure. I have shown that a configuration introducing the subject/object asymmetry is required to explain several phenomena of Basque syntax. Word order facts are explained as the result of the interplay of several independent factors: Topicalizations, analyzed as instances of Move-a in the syntax, movements to COMP and perhaps stylistic scrambling rules of PF responsible for other movements without syntactic repercussions, such as scrambling, heavy NP shift, etc. The basic configuration found at both D-s and S-s can be roughly represented in a tree diagram as in (143):

Word Order and Configurations

121

where both V and I projections are right headed. I will assume a distinction between term and oblique arguments, where ergative, absolutive and dative are treated as N" phrases with grammatical case that has to be checked or assigned against inflection and/or subcategorizations properties of the verb. 9-role is assigned to these arguments by the verb. Phrases bearing oblique cases are treated as P", case and 0-marked by the head P. The distinction between grammatical and semantic cases is based on syntactic and semantic, rather than morphological, factors and has to be motivated at those levels. The basic feature that sets term arguments apart from oblique ones is the ability of the former to induce agreement on the verb. A cluster of properties derive from the reference recoverability that this feature entails. Thus, E, A and D arguments are the only ones that can be freely relativized, without having to depend on rather stringent external factors that can pragmatically recover the function of the missing argument, as indicated in 2.1.1. Similarly, the inventory of case-marked non-anaphoric empty pronouns (pro) in Basque is limited to three, case marked E, A and D, but not others (see 3.2 in Chapter Three). There are also cases where D differs slightly from E and A arguments, but is still distinct from other oblique arguments by virtue of the inflectional marking. Thus, only NP's can be focused by means of clefted structures in Basque. Clefted clauses in Basque are headless relatives used as noun complements with the copula izan 'be', where the constituent in focus position with respect to the copula is related to a gap in the relative clause. While acceptability decreases for dative NP's, there is a sharp distinction with respect to PP's, which are clearly ungrammatical as shown in (144): (144)

i.

Jon da flauta jotzen duena John(A) is flute(sA) play 3A-aux-(3E)-comp-sA It is John that plays flute ii. Jon da lapurrek mehatxatu dutena thief-pE threaten 3A-aux-3pE-comp-sA It is John that the thiefs have threatened iii. ?Jon da liburua erosi dioguna book-sA buy 3A-3D-lpE-comp-sA It is John that we have bought the book to

122 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque iv. *Mahaipea da liburua dagoena table-under-sA is book-sA 3A-prs-be-comp-sA It is under the table that the book is The status of the clefted argument corresponding to a dative argument in (144iii) contrasts with the clefted locative PP in (144iv). Other common features of E, A and D arguments that justify their different treatment as NP's are not directly related to their ability to agree with the verbal element. Grammatical cases are dissociated from particular 0-roles and depend on their relation to a verb to be assigned one. Even in languages like Basque where movement processes to A-positions are scarce and, in that sense, the GF of arguments at S-structure also corresponds with their D-structure GF, the 0-roles associated with particular cases assigned to those GF greatly vary, as shown in (145): (145)

i.

E 0-roles

Agent

Jon-ek hartu zuen John-E take aux John took it

(hartu 'take')

Theme

Jon-ek eskutitza hartu zuen letter John received the letter

(hartu 'receive')

Experiencer Jon-ek usin egin zuen sneeze do John sneezed ii.

A 0-roles

Agent

Jon mintzatu zaio Jon(A) talk aux John has talked to him

Theme

Jon

ikusi dut see aux I have seen John

Experiencer Jon

hotzituta serjtitu zen cold feel aux John felt cold

iii. D 0-roles

Word Order and Configurations Agent

Jon-i esandako-a errepika-erazi nion John-D said-sA repeat-cuase aux I made John repeat what was said

Theme

Jon-i jarraitu diote -D follow aux They have followed John

123

Experiencer Jon-i diru-a galdu zaio -D money-sA loose aux John has lost the money 0-role is assigned here by the verb, whereas oblique semantic cases seem to have an intrinsic 0-role that depends on the P and is assigned by the latter to the nouns (source in ablatives, goal for benefactives, etc.) Before turning to the status of INFL in the representation of Basque syntactic structure in (143), I will briefly describe negative formation, since the behaviour of the elements we will deal with below with respect to negation will be criterial in determining their relation to the INFL head. As shown in the following sentences, word order in negative sentences differs from that of their affirmative counterparts. The orders shown here are neutral, without focalized interpretations of any argument: (146)

i ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii.

Hori that That Hori

egia da truth is is true ez da egia neg That is not true Jonek egia daki John knows John knows the truth Jonek ez daki egia John does not know the truth Jonek Mireni egia esan dio Mary-D say aux John has told Mary the truth Jonek ez dio Mireni egia esan Jonek ez dio esan Mireni egia

(146i,ii) shows the pattern for copular sentences, (iii,iv) for synthetic verbs and (v,vi,vii) for periphrastic verbs (and periphrastic tenses of synthetic verbs). The descriptive generalization emerging from the data is that ez

124 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque occurs with the inflection bearing element (the synthetic verb or the auxiliary) in a position following the subject. I will assume that in periphastic verb sentences like (146v), (146vi) represents the unmarked order, while (146vii) results from the application of Move-a to (vi). The question is then whether ez is base generated in INFL at D-structure and moved, along with I, to the specific position where it occurs in the neutral sentences above, or whether ez is base generated at that position outside INFL and 'attracts' the latter. I will assume the first analysis, since ez appears always cliticized to the inflection and must occur with it even in those cases where we have obligatory inflection final structures, such as relative clauses. In such cases, inflection-verb inversion does not take place, as shown in (147): (147)

i.

inork ikusi ez zuen gizona nobody see neg aux-comp man The man nobody saw ii. *inork ez zuen ikusi gizona27

A preliminary analysis that seems to be descriptively adequate would adjoin I to the VP node, as in (148):

This rule is obligatory, unless its application would violate other independently established constraints, (like the one discussed above and in footnote 27 for relative clauses).28 It conforms to constraints on movementproduced adjunctions in Chomsky (1986b), since it adjoins I to a maximal projection VP that is a non-argument. The process affecting inflection interacts with the equivalent of the AffixHopping rule present in languages where inflection is morphologically united with verbs. In the case of Basque, verbs are divided into two morphological classes: those which can directly incorporate inflection in some tenses and those that cannot. The syntactic counterpart of this morphological fact of Basque is that although V must always raise to I (see Chomsky (1986b) for the English counterpart), only synthetic verbs have the capability of amalgamating with inflection forming the VI (V/ I) unit, as in (149):

Word Order and Configurations

125

(149)

V/I

Periphastic verbs, on the other hand, cannot be morphologically amalgamated with inflection, and V is simply adjoined to I: (150) I' VP V

V

I [e] In this situation, a morphosyntactic process similar to do-support in English takes place, spelling out the agreement, tense, mood features of I by means of auxiliary verbs. The auxiliary will depend on the particular mood and on the presense/absence of a pronominal bundle of features marked ergative, as discussed in the previous chapter. For reasons that will be explained below, I will assume negative ez not to be part of inflection proper, but to be adjoined to I, as in (151): (151)

I (=A) ez

I(=B)

The segment of I including inflectional elements is B in (151), and it is this node that amalgamating verbs move to, giving sequences like ez dakit 'I don't know', ez da 'it isn't', etc., where negation precedes the inflected verb, ¿sz-movement applies to the node containing ez, that is, the segment I dominating ez, A in (151), resulting in a structure like (152) for sentence (146vi) above:

126 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

Here the I containing negative and inflection proper is moved, rather than the node created by adjunction, leaving behind the lexical V. In those instances where other factors prevent ez/l movement from applying, like relatives, all af the elements of I, plus adjoined elements, remain in the original position, giving structures like (153) for a relative clause like (147), repeated here, with the proposed structure directly represented in the linear relations of elements at PF: (147)

inor-k ikusi ez zue-n gizona nobody-E see neg aux-comp man The man that nobody saw

(153)

...i[ ikusii[ ez i[...]]]s gizona ]Np see neg man

In the case of amalgamating verbs, the resulting structure will be as in (154), for sentences (146i,ii,iii,iv) above: there is no extra node produced by adjunction, and I is represented only by an [e]:

Word Order and Configurations

127

The fact that ez is not itself part of Inflection, but only generated adjoined to I, can be shown in sentences with initial inflection. Remember that, at a descriptive level, a filter rules out sentence initial inflected elements. However, the negative element (and affirmative ba) seems to 'shield' inflection from contiguity with absolute string initial position, as shown in (155): (155)

i. *dator Jon comes John John is coming ii. ez dator Jon John is not coming

Sentence initial inflected elements are ruled out, but negated initial inflected elements are completely acceptable. This indicates that ez is not an element of I proper, captured here by assuming an adjunction structure, and that the mentioned filter refers to the segment of I(/V) including inflection elements only. The adjunction position for ez also explains its relative position preceding always inflected elements and other elements of I that will be discussed below. A different analysis will be offered in Chapter Four. One question that is relevant here is whether the traces left by these movements to I and to VP should be subject to the ECP and hence should be properly governed. If they have to be so, with respect to the trace of negative movement, the trace left behind by I must be antecedent governed: in (152) and (154) a maximal projection (VP) dominates I in VP but not the trace in the head position and seems therefore to prevent the c-command relation to hold between the two elements. Note however that VP is an adjunction node. I will follow May (1985) and Chomsky (1986b) in assuming that in an adjunction structure like (156) fi does not dominate a (156)

/*[«/?[...]]

since there is an element of /} that does not dominate a and, as May (1985:57) suggests, all the member nodes of a given projection must dominate a given element for a domination relation to exist. It follows that for sister nodes, not only does each sister c-command the other, but also any element adjoined to either sister c-commands the other. Then, in (152) and (154), VP does not dominate I adjoined to it, and every maximal projection that dominates the moved I (IP again) also dominates the trace [e]. The trace is then c-commanded, and antecedent governed, by the moved element, since there is no barrier preventing government. No violation of ECP results.

128 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque Turning now to the trace of V movement, it would have to be antecedent governed too, since, being the trace of V itself, it would never be 6-governed (or, in earlier versions of ECP, lexically governed by V). In order for the trace to be antecedent governed by the moved element, the latter must govern the trace. The trace of V to I in (149) and (150) is clearly ccommanded: following Aoun and Sportiches's (1983) definition, V(/I) ccommands the V trace, since the former does not dominate the latter and every maximal projection that dominates V(/I) (only IP here) also dominates the trace. However, there is a maximal projection VP that stands as a barrier blocking government. This barrier, however, disappears if movement is done via adjunction to VP, like other movements from within VP in this framework. Then, following the revised definition of domination, the intermediate trace adjoined to VP antecedent governs the original trace (since VP does not exclude the adjoined trace and does not count as a barrier for government). Then, no ECP violation would result even if ECP holds for these traces as well. Apart from the tense, mood and agreement features, INFL will contain the set of particles which Basque grammars list as having the property of appearing between the negative particle ez and the inflected verbal element: interrogative al, conditional ba, desiderative ahal, habitual ohi, quotative omen (ei), rhetoric dubitative ote and conjectural edo, bide.29 Their ability to occur between the negative particle and the inflected verbal element follows from the fact that they are part of the I node to which ez is adjoined. Unlike ez, though, they do appear within I and do not shield inflected elements from initial position, as shown in (157):30 (157)

i. *al daki Jonek Q knows John-E Does John know? ii. *ote daki Jonek dub Does John know? (Rhetoric) iii. "omen daki Jonek quot (It is said) John knows iv. *ba daki Jonek if If John knows

Turning now to V, the verb inserted under this node may appear with several markers indicating some aspectual information (perfective, habitual, future). Some modals may also occur attached to the verbal element. These

Word Order and Configurations

129

modals do not force any auxiliary choice (unlike modal-like elements like behar 'need' and nahi 'want' discussed in Chapter One), and the auxiliary will depend on the (in)transitivity of the lexical verb to which they are attached. One such element is ahal 'be able'. Potentiality in Basque can be expressed either via particular potential inflection forms, that is, by the selection of the potential feature in I, as in (158i), by the modal element ahal (158ii), or in both ways (158iii): (158)

i.

joan n-a-ite-ke go lA-prs-aux-pot I can go ii. joan ahal n-a-iz be able lA-prs-aux I can go iii. joan ahal n-a-ite-ke I can go

Assigning ahal to V, as in (159)

V V

ahal

makes the correct predictions with respect to the linear distribution of the elements we have considered up to now: ahal will occur before inflection particles like quotative omen: (160)

zorrak ordaindu ahal omen dituzte debt-pA pay off be able quot aux (It is said that) they can pay off their debts

Also, in negative possibility with ez, ahal will be left stranded along with the verb by the rule moving ez and the I node containing it:31 (161)

ez omen dituzte zorrak ordaindu ahal neg quot aux debt pay be able (It is said that) they cannot pay off their debts

Since ahal is part of a V node, it will remain by the verbal head in negative sentences, as described above. Finally, aspectual information can be added to the V + ahal unit, as seen with the perfective izan in (162i) and with the future genitive in (ii):

130 Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque (162)

i. ii.

zorrak ordaindu ahal izan dituzte prf They have been able to pay their debts zorrak ordaindu ahal-ko dituzte be able-fut They will be able to pay their debts

There are other modal-like elements discussed in Eguzkitza (1986) as forming part of INFL along with the inflection elements discussed above: hurran 'almost', berri 'just', gogo 'want': (163)

gizona etorri berri/hurran da man-sA come new/close aux The man has just/recently come

I will analyze them, on the other hand, as parallel to ahal, appearing attached to the verbal element they modify, since, as shown in (164), they stay by the verb and are not preposed along ez like other material included in the inflection: (164)

*ez berri/hurran da etorri neg (He) has not just/recently come

In this chapter, I have provided a basic analysis of Basque syntactic structure, with special reference to its configurational nature. I hope to have shown that in spite of the apparent non-configurational character that 'free' word order seems to imply, Basque does present a wide range of subject/object asymmetries that warrant postulating a Vmax node that represents structurally that basic asymmetry. At a sufficiently abstract level, Basque turns out to be not much unlike other, well-known languages, a conclusion which should be welcome. In the following two chapters, I will show how convenient formalizations of some parameters proposed in different contexts can account for other characteristics of Basque that are theoretically relevant in the GB framework: the set of properties that hinge on the pro-drop and focus parameters.

NOTES 1. Different lists vary as to the precise set of features that characterize these languages: see Huang (1982) for other features and Eguzkitza (1986) for their applicability in Basque.

Word Order and Configurations

131

Notice that some of these properties are also associated with independent parameters: thus, both presence of zero pronouns and absence of pleonastic elements are usually considered characteristics of pro-drop languages, although they are included here as non-configurational properties. The precise formulation of the parameter whose fixing in one particular way determines the appearence of these features is still rather unclear. Hale (1983) parametrizes the Projection Principle, so that in his framework both types of languages differ in their way of establishing relationships between Phrase structure (PS) and Lexical structure (LS). In order to interpret a sentence, nominals in PS have to be associated with the argument and 0-role structure of the predicator at LS. The association is carried out via case matching between the case of the nominals and the case specification of the argument structure at LS: argument and nominal can be coindexed if they share the same case. If the Projection Principle holds of LS only in non-configurational languages, then LS arguments need not be coindexed with any nominal in PS. Missing arguments (null anaphora) will not be represented by anything at PS, since it is the Projection Principle that requires their presence in conflgurational languages. If there are no EC's at PS, no movement is possible, and this feature follows directly. In this formulation of the parameter, only the lack of pleonastic elements and movement follows directly. Whether discontinuous expressions are possible or not and word order facts will depend on independent principles governing phrase structure. This represents a shift from Hale (1981), where free word order is considered the main feature of these languages and hence a formulation based on P.S. rules that directly captures this characteristic is proposed. 2. Movement to a 'Focus position' and 'Focus-to-Focus' will be discussed in Chapter Four. For a comment on other types of movement, see Eguzkitza (1986), who considers a dialect where the other candidate for movement, irudi 'seem', does not seem to involve any, since sentences like (i) are out: (i)

*Andoni-k dirudi etorri d-ela Andoni-E seems come aux-that Andoni seems to have come

Here the sentence is ungrammatical because Andoni has received the ergative case of the subject of irudi, having been moved from the subject (absolutive) of the intransitive clause. Then this is not a raising predicate in Basque, and only Focus-to-Focus is possible: in (ii) the absolutive subject of the embedded clause has been moved to the Focus preverbal position of the upper clause, retaining its case: (ii)

Andoni dirudi etorri dela Andoni-A It is Andoni who seems to have come

Such movement is quite general and occurs with a wide set of predicates. There are speakers, however, that do accept sentences like (i), although I doubt that even in those cases we have any actual Raising, rather than base-generation. Notice that in such dialects the embedded clause is tensed, and that other arguments apart from the subject may be raised, as in (iii): (iii)

Jon-ek dirudi Peru-k jo du-ela John-E seems Peter-E beat aux-that John seems (looks like) Peter has beaten him

132

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

Some speakers accept structures like (iii) not only with objects, but also with locatives as ergative subjects. Something different from what we understand as raising seems to be happening in these dialects. See also Goenaga (1982) for another possible candidate for (tough) movement in Basque, which, however, may be better analyzed as involving an empty operator anaphorically related to the base-generated matrix subject. 3. I use indefinite heads to facilitate the non-restrictive relative interpretation, but even with definite heads (as in (i), for instance) both interpretations (restrictive and non-restrictive) are possible: (i)

heldu-ko da egun-a [honetaz ere argia egingo dena] day-sA The day will arrive, when light will be shed on this too The day when light will be shed on this too will arrive

In fact, it is not only the case that restrictive relative clauses can appear as post-head modifiers, but the opposite also holds true: non-restrictive relative clauses, although usually post-head, can appear as pre-head modifiers, as in (ii) (ii)

[ Lagun urko-a duda-n] Arribe jauna... friend close-A have-comp Mr. Mr. Arribe, who is a close friend of mine, ...

The conclusion is that there is no syntactic distinction between the two types of relative clauses in Basque, and that, although semantically restrictive clauses usually appear as prehead modifiers and semantically non-restrictive ones as post-head appositions, either one may also appear in either position. 4. I call -ko (locative genitive) complements 'oblique' to oppose them to -(arjen (possessive genitive) complements. The generalization that I am using here, ignoring many details of the rather thorny and intricate question of the exact distinction between the two genitives, is that possessive genitives appear with 'term' argumental relations of the genitivized element to the head noun: possessors, subjective and objective genitives like those in (1), or 'objects' of nominalized verbs in northern dialects (see 1.2.2). Locative genitives, on the other hand, are attached to oblique complements like those in (4). Notice that the fact that they are also added directly to nouns as in (4i,ii) does not constitute counterevidence to this generalization: the presence of an inesive phrase underlying the base noun in forms like mendiko 'of/from the mountain' and Bilboko 'of/from Bilbao' has already been pointed out in Goenaga (1980, 1981). Also notice that the interrogative pronoun does show this morphologically complex structure: no-n-go, with the inesive marker infixed. The distinction drawn in Goenaga (1981) between Euskal Herriko adiskideak 'the friends from/of( that live in, are in) the Basque Country' and Euskal Herriaren adiskideak 'the friends o f / * from the Basque Country (that the Basque Country has)' points also at the same direction, if in semantic terms. The rule deleting the inesive marker -n when followed by the noun complement marker (locative genitive) -ko is still productive. Thus, compare the form of the auxiliary in the temporal adjunct clause in (i) and in (ii): as a verb complement the inesive ending is overtly present, but it is lost when the same sentence is used as a noun complement and -ko is attached to it: (i)

txikia nintzen-ean ... small was-in When I was young...

Word Order and Configurations (ii)

5.

133

txikia nintzen-eko kapela was-fco hat 'The hat of when I was young'/The hat I used when I was young The possessive genitive case ending -(arjert is also occasionally found, attached either

to the -(e)la (i) or -(e)n (ii) subordinator: (i)

(ii)

gutxiago d-ela-ren kontzientzia less is-comp-gen consciousness The consciousness that it is less gutxiago d-en-aren kontzientzia

6. The first interpretation of (7) would be 'The house that Espartero signed', treating the gap as one of the most easily recoverable (via inflection) nomináis marked absolutive. 7. Again, genitive case complements can also be occasionally found, as noted for tensed clauses in footnote 5: (i)

(ii)

hori da beharbada ez gusta-tze-aren arrazoia that is perhaps neg like-nom-gen reason That is perhaps the reason for not liking it Aborta-tze-a ezkutu-an egi-te-ra bultza-tze-aren ondorioa abort-nom-A hiding-in do-nom-to force-nom-gen consequence A consequence of forcing to abort illegally

8. Treating the Basque case system as markers on NP's that do not correspond to postpositions is equally feasible, although it is not clear that both treatments are notational variants. In this chapter, I choose the postpositional approach to outline the similarities with true postpositions. The case system of Basque is of a rather agglutinative nature, different from the case systems of languages such as Latin or German, which often include unrelated singular-plural forms with portmanteau morphemes, frequent homophonies and different declension types for different noun classes. Although far from morphologically transparent, the Basque case system is closer in this respect to that of languages such as Turkish and Quechua: cfr. llaqta 'village', llaqtakuna 'the villages', llaqta-ta 'the village' (accusative),

llaqtakuna-ta 'the villages' (accusative), llaqta-man 'to the village', Uaqta-kuna-man 'to the villages'... Jaeggli (1981) makes use of Vergnaud's (1974) theory that only pre (or postpositions can appear with conjoined NP's to determine that Spanish indirect object phrases with a are PP's rather than case marked NP's, since sentences like (i) are possible, while (ii), with personal a direct object is not: (i) (ii)

Les compraron una casa a Maria y el director They bought a house for Maria and the director ??Les vieron a Maria y el director They saw Maria and the director

Thus, although it is clear that a preposition may govern a pair of conjoined nouns, it is not so clear what the analysis of [PN] & [N] would be if both are considered case-marked nouns. In this respect, any sequence of two nomináis with the same case can appear in Basque as a conjoined pair of nomináis with one single marking, as in (iii):

134

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque a. b. c. d. e.

Peru eta Mikel-ek Peter and Michael-E Peru eta Mikel Peru eta Mikel-i Peru eta Mikel-ekin Peru eta Mikel-entzat

(I am indebted to Jose Ignacio Hualde for this observation). This test does not establish any difference between term and oblique cases in Basque, and it suggests that all should be treated as postpositional phrases. However, it seems to me that a stylistic rule of P F eliminating one of the case markers is as plausible an explanation as a conjunction of noun phrases with a single preposition, at least in languages like Basque where such rule could apply to all case-marked nominals. A different prediction is made if we consider the branching structure that the postpositional theory assumes for oblique nominals. Consider a form of the postpositional theory where term nominals (absolutives, ergatives and datives) are considered NP's receiving case and 0-role from the verb/INFL, while oblique nominals are analyzed as branching postpositional phrases with a head P governing a nominal and receiving 8-role from the postposition itself. Then, this predicts that, since antecedents have to c-command anaphors, a term, say absolutive, object antecedent may bind a postpositional anaphor, but not viceversa. This seems to be the case as shown in (iv), which is grammatical while (v) is not: (iv)

(v)

Elkarr-engandik banatu genituen recip-from separate aux We separated them from each other *Elkar banatu genuen/genituen anai-engandik recip(A) brother-from *We separated each other from the brothers

If obliques are NP's, on the other hand, some extra constraint has to be added to Binding Theory to prevent oblique NP's from serving as antecedents to term NP's, while this is an automatic consequence of the branching structure assumed by the postpositional theory. I call the particles quoted in the text 'true' postpositions to differentiate them from inflected nouns that have a similar function, like aurre 'front part', azpi 'lower part', ondo 'side', etc. These expressions normally appear in locative cases, and, as nouns, their complements bear the genitive case, although the latter may be dropped: (vi)

bide(-aren) ondo-an way-gen side-loc Beside the road (At the road side)

9. The sentences in (23) are identical to oblique headless relative clauses, which in Basque differ from headed ones only in that there is no overt head noun and the case marking that would be attached to the latter is directly attached to the auxiliary or the synthetic verb. Some Basque grammars treat them as normal relative clauses with abstract head nouns like 'moment, time, occasion, place...'. In the analysis presented here, the meaning does not come from any deleted NP, but from the case ending itself: thus, if locatives (inesives) in Basque can have both locative and temporal meanings with nouns (cfr. etxe-an 'at home', goiz-ean 'in the morning') they can form time or place adverbials with full sentences:

Word Order and Configurations (i)

(ii)

135

Etorri d-en-ean come aux-n-loc When he has come Bego dago-en-ean be is-n-loc Let it be where it is

Semantically, the fact that a clause like 'When he came' or 'the big man' can be paraphrased as 'At the time he came' or 'the man that is big' does not mean that the former should be derived from the latter, even if that was the tendency in early transformational theory. As with other such analyses, it is not easy to motivate one particular deleted noun over the other possibilities (time?, moment?, occasion?). Formally, the fact that the complementizer is -it, the same as in relative clauses, is not very enlightening, since this is a general subordinator occurring in other embedded clauses like indirect questions, negative completives, subjunctive completives etc. A relative analysis might be diachronically motivated, but the question is not so clear at a synchronic level: thus, some of these sentences share with relatives the constraint that the negative particle ez cannot attract the auxiliary to the front of the sentence, as in other clauses like (v) below: (iii)

(iv) (v)

Aitor etxe-tik agertzen ez de-n-etik... Aitor house-by appear neg aux-n-from Since (the time) Aitor does not appear around the house... * Aitor ez denetik etxetik agertzen Aitor ez da etxetik agertzen Aitor does not appear around the house

However, relative clauses are obligatorily verb-final and no element within the relative clause may appear outside it, say to the right of the postcedent, whereas elements of adverbial clauses may appear after the verb: (vi)

[Heldu zire-n]-ean etxe-ra... arrive aux-n-loc house-to When they arrived home...

The question is then far from clear. To exemplify further, the complex case ending -lakoan is interpreted as 'on the assumption that', 'thinking that', as in (vii): (vii)

Giro ezberdina aurkituko zue-lakoan etorri zen atmosphere different find aux-lakoan come aux He came thinking that he would find a different atmosphere

This construction is similar to the ones we have been considering, since, as seen above, complex NP constructions have -lako subordinators and it is easy to relate (vii) to (viii) below, with the full complex noun phrase overt: (viii)

Giro ezberdina aurkituko zue-lako uste-an etorri zen belief-in He came on the belief that...

A relative origin for (vii) is therefore quite plausible in this construction, where the meaning cannot be derived from the meaning of the locative suffix -an. However, even in this case,

136

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque

there are some problems: while -lakoan is a quite common structure at all levels of speech, -lako complex NP complements are restricted to literary usage (and they are in fact considered deviant borrowings from Romance in Txillardegi (1981)) 10. Actually, in cases like the ones shown for oso 'very', it is not only that some elements do not seem to occur in one particular position to the exclusion of the other. In fact, they appear scrambled with other sentential elements, the closest Basque gets to discontinuous constituency, or simply lack of an X" projection for X=Adj. 11. Verb initial sentences are less common. However, it is not the case that they are not grammatical, as often stated. Rather, what we seem to find is a constraint against clause initial inflected elements. Thus, synthetic verbs are clearly out clause initially: (i)

*D-a-ki-t gauza bat (nik) 3A-prs-know-lsE thing one I I know one thing

However, periphrastic verbs are acceptable clause initially (as in (34iv), and in fact seem to occur relatively often in narrative styles. Such verbs require an auxiliary to bear inflection, which appears after the participle supplying the verbal meaning and aspect information in affirmatives and after the negative particle ez in negatives. In these cases, therefore, the inflected verbal element (the auxiliary) will not appear clause initially. Such restrictions are quite familiar in natural languages (cfr. the 'Wackernagel* position for inflection in Australian languages, the second position for verbs in German, etc.). The exact details of this restriction would have to be worked out, since it is not absolute, as seen in (ii), where the synthetic verb occupies the same linear position as in (i), but with a rather different construction, and the sentence is grammatical: (ii)

Dakida-n gauza bakarra da... I know-comp thing only is The only thing I know is...

These are constructions where no other word order is possible, since the inflected element must be clause final in relative clauses. In this case at least the EC corresponding to the relativized element will appear before the verb with an initial structure like (iii): (iii)

S[NP[S[

[e] dakidan ] s gauza ]Np da ...]s

12. Although there are three constituents in the sentence, the number of possible combinations is not three to the third because the copula is a synthetic verb which cannot occur clause initially. See also footnote 11. 13. It seems to be the case that such multiple wh-questions with 'term' wh-arguments have to conform to basic word-order constraints operating on the language. Thus, English is an SVO language, and only an SVO order is possible in the examples considered. Similarly, when indirect objects are considered, (i) is better than (ii): (i) (ii)

Who said what to whom *To whom did who say what

Since, as explained below in the text, only Subject-Indirect Object-Direct Object orders are possible in Basque, this might provide more evidence that SOV is the basic word order in this language. The same is true for negative sentences like (48) in the text. Thus, compare (i,ii) with (iii) and (iv):

Word Order and Configurations (iii) (iv)

137

Nobody said anything 'Nothing said anybody

These restrictions are even more stringent in Spanish, a language which allows postposed subjects and where an OVS multiple question like (v) is acceptable: (v)

¿qué dijo quién? what said who

Still, the same order with negation is less acceptable in a non-literary style: (vi) (vii)

nadie dijo nada nobody said anything 'nada dijo nadie

14. In fact, this type of analysis has been proposed for Medieval Spanish in Maria Luisa Rivero (1984) 15. The unacceptability of (59) might be related to the difference in structure with respect to (57): (59) has a double topic, (57) only one. That the unacceptability of (59) is not related to cross-over facts might be supported by evidence from other languages (see Saito and Hoji (1983) for Japanese) indicating a distinction between quasi-operators like topicalized constituents, which may not produce weak cross-over effects and true operators like whphrases and quantifiers, which do. See also Longobardi (1985:173), where topicalized constituents are shown to act as if occupying their original S-internal locations for Binding purposes. 16. Thus, according to Villasante (1972), in the classical literary language, sentences like (i) and (ii), involving a familiar pattern between intransitive and transitive predications, would vary with respect to the possessive pronoun forms: (i)

(ii)

Ene-ak d-i-ra falt-ak my-pA 3A-prs-be fault-pA The mistakes are mine Neure-ak d-it-u-t falt-ak my(inten)-pA 3A-Ap-have-lsE fault-pA The mistakes are mine

In (i) the referent of the possessive, 'I', is not encoded in the inflectional information, since the copula only includes a marking for the third person plural absolutive subject faltak. On the other hand, in (ii), the first person singular is included in the inflection, following the pattern found in sentences like 'She is my mother/I have her (as) my mother'. Accordingly, the possessive appears in the intensive form. This system has been long obsolete in many dialects and 1st and 2nd person intensive pronouns are used mainly in emphatic contexts, or only where they refer to the subject of the clause. However, traces of it still remain. Thus, in reflexives, which, as described in Chapter One, are formed with a possessive phrase of the type 'X's head', the reference of the genitive must be with an element within its own governing category, typically a term argument which will be coindexed in the inflection, and therefore, the intensive form of the possessive is generally used. See note (17) for comments on the third person possessive system with respect to this 'classical' pattern. 17. The standard cases discussed in Basque grammars are those like (65), where the referent of the possessive is the subject of the sentence. However, this is not the only possibility: thus, consider a more complex case like (i):

138 (i)

Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque Jon-ek Mikel-i liburu-a bere etxe-an utzi zion John-E Michael-D book-A his house-in leave aux John left Michael the book in his house

Here bere could refer either to the subject NP Jonek or the indirect object Mikel. The terms proximate and obviative seem adequate at a descriptive level, but we would like to find a more explanatory account to derive their distribution from general principles. Eguzkitza (1986) analizes bere possessives as anaphoric, opposed to haren which would behave like referential expressions. Then, bere will have to be bound within its governing category (generally its S), while haren will obey Principle C of Binding, forcing it to be free and pick its referent not from its S but from outside, perhaps the discourse. However, sentences like (ii.iii) show cases where bere is not bound in its governing category: (ii)

(iii)

Bere ama-k asko maite du his mother-E much love aux His mother loves (him) very much Nik neuk esan nion bere aitari I I(int) say aux his father-D I told his father myself

Both cases seem acceptable, although in (ii) bere cannot be bound by anything in S and in (iii) it is not bound. Some dialectal variation might be involved, and forms like beraren should also be considered. It is because of these cases that the intensive-neutral can be seen to differ from the classical system described above, although in the basic cases discussed in the text, the 'classical' system seems to be at work: where the referent is the subject, it will always be coindexed on the verb and hence the intensive bere will be used; when the referent of the possessive is outside the clause, it will never be marked in the inflection and the neutral haren will be used. Classical and northern dialects have been intensively and illuminatingly studied in Rebuschi (1986, to appear b). See also 2.2.2.6.2. 18. The sentences would also be ruled out by the version of Binding Theory incorporating Principle C, since the referential expression Jon would be bound. 19. Eguzkitza (1986) notes that although 'ergative' partitives are not possible, quantificational interpretations of ergative subjects are possible with expressions like inongo NP, as in (i): (i)

inongo gizon-ek ez du hori esan man -E neg aux that do No man has said that

However, the point here is not whether the quantificational reading is possible at all for subjects, which obviously is, but rather, why partitives, which can have that interpretation as objects, cannot have it, in fact, cannot appear at all, as transitive subjects. In this respect, inongo phrases pose the same question: they also convey a quantificational reading, but the NP can only be marked partitive if occupying a D-object position, as in (ii). Where, as in (iii), the head of the inongo phrase corresponds to an ergative subject, the partitive case is out, and only (i), with ergative marking is possible: (ii)

(iii)

ez nuen inongo zarata-rik entzun neg aux noise-part hear I did not hear any noise *inongo gizon-ik ez du hori esan -part

Word Order and Configurations

139

One possible explanation is that this is a purely morphological phenomenon: partitive case could only be assigned to zero bases, and since the only case marked by zero is the absolutive, only absolutive partitives are possible: ergative nomináis have a -k ending to which partitive cannot be attached. T o account for this phenomenon as just another wrinkle of Basque morphology is neither enlightening nor satisfactory. It cannot be generalized to the other partitive cases of different languages mentioned in the text. Furthermore, the fact that such restrictions occur on parallel constructions for the same functional relations in different languages is left completely unexplained. 20. See de Rijk (1972) for a detailed account of the Basque partitive construction. Actually, in this paper, de Rijk explicitly proposes an empty quantifier analysis for partitives, mentioning, apart from the Basque data, the similarity of the construction with Russian genitive of negation, Dutch and French partitives etc, and anticipating, as far as I know, Kayne's analysis. 21. Hornstein (1984) proposes to relate the availability of both universal and existential readings in similar contexts in English by the logical entailment relation between i 3 and V~l. In this case, the universal interpretation would be the basic one. The analysis is not so obvious for interrogative operators: ? 3 is different from V ?. 22. I will limit myself here to reciprocal anaphora, leaving reflexives aside. The reason is that while reciprocal elkar is a bona fide anaphor in Basque, the same is not the case for reflexive expressions of the form Ts head. The non-referential element of the expression is the possessive my, your..., and the distribution is different from that of reciprocals. Thus, the same as possessive bere 'his' or neure 'my' are possible in subject position referring to an element within their own clause, so is a subject reflexive: (i)

(ii)

bere buruak liluratzen du nere anaia his head-E enchant aux my brother(A) My brother is enchanted with himself/Himself (his own head) enchants my brother zeure buruak egin zaitu (zu) esklabo your head-E do aux you(A) slave You have enslaved yourself/Yourself (your own head) has enslaved you

Still, sentences like (i) and (ii) have a distinct literary flavor, and are possible in a restricted type of contexts where the reflexive element means something like 'your own personality'. Apart from such contexts, subject 'X's head' expressions are not commonly acceptable: (iii)

(iv)

Jon-ek bere buru-a bota zuen ure-tara John-E his head-A throw aux water-to John threw himself into the water *Bere buru-ak bota zuen Jon uretara his head-E John-A His head threw John into the water

Although the latter, mainstream usage of Basque reflexive expressions does seem to conform to the one observed for other anaphoric elements, I will restrict myself to the reciprocal anaphor in this section. 23. As will be observed later (section 2.2.2.6.2) Rebuschi (to appear a,b) claims that, since elkar agrees always as a third person singular element regardless of its reference, it is a lexical anaphor bound at Lexical Structure. 24. If possible at all, the bound interpretation might be made possible due to the particular status of the bete series pronouns, which are intensive possessives often with an interpretation similar to 'his own', that is, an interpretation favoring a variable reading. 25. (138i) is intended as a bona fide coordination. This qualification is necessary, since, diachronically, eta fused with participles to constitute the adverbial form, e.g., utzita (