Nevins e Arregi 2011

Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout
Karlos Arregi Andrew Nevins
February 11, 2011
2 Ally MacLeod [Scotlands 1978 football coach] thinks that tactics are a new kind of mint." Billy Connolly, b. 1942
Contents
Preface List of Tables List of Figures Abbreviations Chapter 1: Introduction: The Structure of Spellout 1 Major Claims of this Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Distributed Morphology and the Division of Labor in Word-Formation . . . . 2.1 An Overview of the Serial and Modular Components . . . . . . . . . 2.2 An Overview of DM Elements and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Basque language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Geographic and demographic background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Orthography and other conventions in representing Basque sentences 3.3 Sources of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Argument Structure and case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 The syntax and morphology of DPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 The syntax of auxiliaries: T, C, and agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 The syntax of auxiliaries and pronominal clitics . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Other aspects of verbal syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Finite main verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Nonindicative auxiliaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.3 Colloquial/Formal Distinctions and Allocutive Morphology 4.5.4 Binding-theoretic considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Overview of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 2: The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Clitic placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Clitic generation . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Clitic movement . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Alternative analyses of cliticization . . 2.4 Summary: The syntax of cliticization . 3
7 9 11 13 17 17 19 19 21 25 25 29 30 31 32 36 38 42 44 44 45 46 46 50 53 53 55 55 59 64 65
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
4 3 The Person-Case Constraint and Absolutive Promotion 3.1 The Person-Case Constraint in Basque . . . . . 3.2 Absolutive Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Other PCC repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Multiple Agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Agree-Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Complementizer agreement . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Summary: The syntax of agreement . . . . . . Default agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complementizers within the Auxiliary Complex . . . . Conclusion: Cliticization vs. Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 66 70 74 76 76 81 83 88 88 93 96 99 99 100 101 102 105 105 106 110 113 114 117 117 117 119 124 127 132 132 137 138 143 153 157 158 161 162
5 6 7
Chapter 3: The Morphophonology of Basque Finite Auxiliaries 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Vocabulary Insertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Contextual restrictions and linear adjacency . . . . . . 2.2 Competition among vocabulary entries . . . . . . . . 3 Clitic realization in the morphophonology . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Clitics and morpheme order in the auxiliary . . . . . . 3.2 The realization of clitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Plural Fission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 On the absence of third person absolutive clitics . . . . 3.5 On plural morphology in Basque nite verbs . . . . . 3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The realization of agreement on T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Allomorphy in the context of ergative and dative clitics 4.2 Lekeitio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Ondarru and Zamudio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Multiple agreement in Lekeitio . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The realization of auxiliary morphemes in previous accounts . 6 Phonological rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Morpheme-specic rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Syllabication and related processes . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Other phonological processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Rule interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Rules that apply across word boundaries . . . . . . . . 6.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 4: Deletion Operations Targeting Morphological Markedness 165 1 Distinctions among types of postsyntactic deletion operations . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 2 Paradigmatic Markedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 2.1 Formal/Colloquial Neutralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Contents 2.2 Paradigmatic Impoverishment of the [+participant] feature on 1sg clitics Syntagmatic markedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Dissimilatory deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 3/3 effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On the Nonlinearity of Impoverishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participant Dissimilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Ondarru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Zamudio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Other varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 On the potential diachronic origins of impoverishment rules . . . . . . Plural Clitic Impoverishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 167 168 168 169 170 171 173 175 178 179 180 187 187 188 189 193 198 201 204 206 207 207 215 216 222 225 226 230 231 237 238 241 245 253 253 257 261 261 263
4 5
Chapter 5: Linearity-Based Morphotactics 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Generalized Reduplication and constraints on Linearization . . . . . . . 2.1 Metathesis and Doubling in Spanish agreement morphology . . 2.2 Noninitiality, Metathesis, and allomorph selection in Old Irish . 2.3 Noninitiality in nonclausal domains in Amharic and Lithuanian 2.4 Nonnality and morphological epenthesis in Italian innitives . 2.5 Multiple wh-movement and constraints on distance to the edge . 2.6 Morpheme-specic ordering constraints in Athapaskan . . . . . 2.7 Interim conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Linearization of plural clitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Ergative Metathesis and related phenomena in Basque nite auxiliaries . 4.1 Ergative Metathesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Ergative Doubling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 L-Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Ergative Metathesis and Doubling of third person clitics . . . . 4.5 Summary: Noninitiality and its repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Ergative Metathesis as a metathetic phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Additional Repairs to Provide a Left-Edge for the Auxiliary Root . . . . 6.1 Dative Doubling in Oati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 A typology of dative displacements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Allocutive Metathesis and Doubling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Linearization, hierarchical relations, and Root Reduplication . . . . . . 7.1 Hierachical relations in the Linearization component . . . . . . 7.2 Root Reduplication in Ondarru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Remarks on The Externalization of Inection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 6: Rule Interaction in a Serial and Modular Architecture
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 7: Conclusions 267 1 Plural marking as a microcosm of DM operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 2 Crossmodular Structural Parallelism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
6 3
Contents On the Methodological Cycle between cross-dialectal breadth and depth . . . . . . 268 271 278 281
Appendix: Indicative auxiliary paradigms Appendix: Dialect classication Bibliography
Preface
This book is about the tactics employed in order to achieve morphological well-formedness during the Spellout of complex inectional words. Halle and Marantz (1993) introduced the framework of Distributed Morphology. Despite almost two decades of articles and research under this general theoretical banner, there are few full-length monographs that provide a full analysis of a complex inectional system in DM. In this book, we present such an effort, the result of which, perhaps unsurprisingly, necessitates a number of modications and innovations to the theory itself. In this case study we focus on nite auxiliaries (have and be) in Basque. Why focus a whole book on two verbs? And not even main verbs, rich with lexical content, but helper" verbs the auxiliary forms that support tense, mood, agreement, and inection, a would-be porter carrying all of the grammatical luggage that the main verb cant be bothered with. It is remarkable how much action Basque packs into its auxiliaries enough, for example, to have yielded a 6-volume set entirely devoted to the variety and variation in auxiliary forms, collected in the indispensable work of de Yrizar (1992). This is because auxiliaries (a) are obligatory in (almost) every sentence, unlike say English or Romance (present tense) and (b) they include cliticization of four different elements as well as complementizer agreement, and so really its not the verbs (have and be alone, but the fact that these verbs become constellations for quite complex Morphological Words, in which syntax, feature-level co-occurrence restrictions, linear morphotactics, and morphophonological rules all collide. Our study has three major goals. The rst is to elaborate the potential of Distributed Morphology as a analytical tool applicable to a complete analysis of the variation and restrictions in the syntactic, morphotactic, and phonological form of auxiliaries in crossdialectal microcomparison. As such, it is necessarily extremely detailed in places, as we have left no corner of these auxiliaries unvisited. The second is to develop the consequences of this study for our broader understanding of the architecture of grammar, in pursuit of principled restrictions on the operation of individual rules and their possibilities for interaction, and with an eye towards the relevance of parallelisms between operations in the morphological component and the phonological component, which, while operating over different alphabets, contain numerous structural parallelisms. The third is to point the way towards a more profound understanding of the Basque language itself, emphasizing the importance of description and analysis of regional dialects during an era of increasing standardization and convergence, and developing the tools for further inquiry into the countless dialects of Basque that we could not treat within this work, but hope that can now be seen with new light in the future. This book represents a coordinated collaborative effort traversing three continents, and we are grateful to many people who have encouraged and assisted us along the way: Iaki Gaminde during our eldwork in Zamudio, Jos Ignacio Hualde and Milan Rezac who provided invaluable pointers to dialectal evidence; Asaf Bachrach, Jonathan Bobaljik, Morris Halle, Ayesha Kidwai, Miriam 7
Preface
Lemle, Gereon Mller, and Jochen Trommer, who rightly demanded (and often suggested ideas for) theoretical elaboration in numerous places. Most important above all during this ve-year effort has been the support and understanding of Ikuska and Cilene.
List of Tables
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Dialectal classication of Lekeitio, Ondarru and Zamudio Basque . . . . . . . Number of speakers age 5 and older in 2001 in Lekeitio, Ondarru and Zamudio Nonlocative cases of etxe house in Lekeitio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Locative cases of etxe house in Lekeitio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analytic tenses in Basque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
28 28 37 37 39
Second person pronouns in Basque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Second person clitics in Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Basque pronominal clitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Positional neutralization in metathesized ergative clitics . First singular clitic exponents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of clitic -e and complementizer agreement -s Intransitive T in the absence of a dative clitic in Lekeitio Monotransitive T in Lekeitio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple agreement in Lekeitio present tense ditransitives Basque pronominal clitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finite forms of jun go in Ondarru . . . . . . . . . . . . Phonological rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 109 110 116 120 121 129 133 136 157
Plural Clitic Impoverishment in Lekeitio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Present tense of bedid carry in Old Irish (Adger 2006:616) . Ergative Metathesis in Ondarru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ergative Metathesis in ditransitives (3rd singular absolutive) . Past tense ditransitive auxiliary in Oati (Badihardugu 2005:5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 218 221 238 272 272 273 273 274 275 276 277
Absolutive auxiliary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Absolutive-dative auxiliary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Present tense absolutive-ergative auxiliary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Present tense absolutive-dative-ergative auxiliary (third singular absolutive) Present tense absolutive-dative-ergative auxiliary (third plural absolutive) . Past tense absolutive-ergative auxiliary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Past tense absolutive-dative-ergative auxiliary (third singular absolutive) . . Past tense absolutive-dative-ergative auxiliary (third plural absolutive) . . .
List of Figures
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6
An overview of the serial and modular architecture of Basque auxiliary word-formation 20 Location of the Basque Country and the seven Basque provinces . . . . . . . . . . 26 Basque dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Basic syntax of Basque sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 The syntax of clitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clitics in a ditransitive sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ungrammatical derivation of a sentence with absolutive and dative clitics Absolutive Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agreement between T and an absolutive argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . Agreement between T and absolutive and dative arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 68 69 72 77 78
11
Abbreviations
1 2 3
A ABL ABS ACT ALL C CDECL CIMP CINT CL CL . A CL . ABL CL . ACC CL . ALL CL . D CL . E CL . EP CL . GEN CL . OBJ CL . REFL CL . SBJ CNEG COM COND
rst person second person third person absolute inection ablative case absolutive case activity allative case conjunct inection declarative complementizer imperative complementizer interrogative complementizer clitic absolutive clitic ablative clitic accusative clitic allocutive clitic (allative clitic in Romance) dative clitic ergative clitic epenthetic clitic genitive clitic object clitic reexive clitic subject clitic negative complementizer comitative case conditional
13
14
CPST CREL DAT DEF DFL DIST ERG EVID EXPL F GEN HAB IMP IMPR IN INDEF INF ITE L LGEN M MDL NF PART PL PPART PRF PRS PST PV REFL SG SBJ SUBJ THM TRNS
Abbreviations past tense complementizer relative clause complementizer dative case denite article default distributive ergative case evidential expletive subject feminine genitive case habitual imperfective imperative inessive case indenite innitive iterative L-morpheme locative genitive case masculine middle nonnite partitive case plural past participle perfective present past preverb reexive singular subject subjunctive thematic transitional
Basque Orthography
The following is a list of grapheme-sound correspondences used in Basque orthography, limited to those that the reader not familiar with Basque phonology and orthography might have problems with. See Subsection 3.2 in Chapter 1 for further details. dd dx j ll r rr s ts tt tx tz x y z voiced palatal stop [] voiced alveopalatal fricative [Z] voiceless velar fricative [x] palatal lateral [L] palatal nasal [] alveolar tap [R] or trill [r], alvelolar trill [r] voiceless apical alveolar fricative [s] voiceless apical alveolar affricate [] voiceless palatal stop [c] voiceless alveolopalatal affricate [] voiceless laminal alveolar affricate [] n voiceless alveolopalatal fricative [S] voiced palatal fricative [] voiceless laminal alveolar fricative [s]
15
Chapter 1 Introduction: The Structure of Spellout
1.1 Major Claims of this Book Morphology is often seen by itself": even some of the proponents of approaches to word-formation that claim to be much more syntactic in nature than others often fall prey to a series of exclusively morphological operations whose motivation is left unexplored. In this book we attempt to nd more sense in the seemingly ragtag array of morphological rules invoked in analysis of inectional systems. Taking a cue from phonological theory, we explore the consequences of a morphological theory enriched with the explanatory power afforded by markedness theory, by a separation of phenomena into constraints and repairs and by a division of operations into an ordered set of principled modules. This book is about the structure of the morphological component responsible for word-formation in Basque nite auxiliaries, such as (1), which contains three clitics, an auxiliary root, and complementizer agreement: (1) s -aitu -da -s
CL . A .2 -PRS .2. PL -CL . E .1. SG -CL . A . PL
-e (>saitudese) (Leioa, Gaminde 1984:vol 1, 285) -2. PL
Basque auxiliaries and other inected verbs provide a rich testing ground for examining the interaction of morphological and syntactic operations. While a variety of work within morphological theory often examines operations within particular domains (e.g. inectional neutralization, clitic placement, allomorph selection, reordering operations), the Basque nite verb is somewhat unique in displaying the interaction of all of these operations at play within the same morphological word. The feature-cooccurrence relations, morpheme re-ordering, clitic placement, and conditioned allomorphic realization all jointly constitute the morphotactics of the Basque nite verb. Based on case studies informed by a variety of Basque dialects, we will ultimately arrive at three broader conclusions about the nature of word-formation within the inectional component: that word-formation is derived through a principled order of morphological operations organized within modular components, that morphotactics enjoys structural parallelism with phonotactics, and that the Distributed" of Distributed Morphology is its key insight. We turn to an elaboration of each of these three claims. It is often assumed that within the structure-building operation of the syntactic computation, there are only sisterhood relations and labeling of mother nodes, but no linear order among syntactic nodes within the syntax itself. Linearization the conversion of a set of unordered sisterhood relations into a total linear order is a process that takes place only after the completion of the structure-building operations of syntax. Assuming that linearization is after syntax opens the pos17
18
Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout
sibility that other post-syntactic operations may themselves take place before or after linearization. In this book we propose that there are two suites of post-syntactic operations, Pre-Linearization and Post-Linearization. Whether an operation is post-linearization depends on whether the operation itself (a) is motivated by morphotactic concerns related to linear order, or (b) needs to look at linear order so as to effect its structural change. Morpheme-metathesis processes clearly are post-linearization, whereas feature-deletion operations clearly are not. Throughout this book we develop a series of ordering arguments, based on classic derivational demonstrations of opacity, feeding, and bleeding, demonstrating that indeed feature-deletion and other pre-linearization operations necessarily precede morpheme-metathesis operations. The resulting set of predictions yields a principled view of what the sequence of post-syntactic operations must be like, and recalls the separation of phonological processes into stem-level and word-level phonology (Kiparsky 1982). Within the study of phonotactics, processes such as epenthesis, syllabication, and dissimilation have been increasingly understood as the result of universal and language-specic pressures of markedness. We argue that the seemingly haphazard array of morphological operations posited within postsyntactic approaches to morphology can be constrained and understood once the role of morphological markedness is brought into focus. One of the results we emphasize is that a morphological markedness constraint holding across a variety of Basque dialects may be separated from its associated repair operation. This result echoes the ndings from within the study of phonotactics that a given constraint (e.g. a ban on obstruents in coda position, or a ban on lax high vowels) may be held constant across different dialects while these dialects may vary in what operation resolves the phonotactic constraint. The study of word-formation, we argue, is brought into sharper focus once it is understood as a series of interacting morphotactic constraints and repair operations. A major thread that runs throughout this study, therefore, is constant investigation of the properties of operations in the morphological component and how they nd kindred parallels within phonological computation. This hypothesis, Crossmodular Structural Parallelism, thereby holds that the formal properties dened and exemplied throughout the our treatment of the Spellout of the Basque auxiliary including a serial and modular architecture with counterbleeding opacities, a separation of markedness into constraints and repairs, the particular implementation of ssion as feature splitting, and the adoption of the Generalized Reduplication formalism for metathesis and doubling reect an overall organization of the grammar in which computational operations are reused" across levels of language structure with different alphabets. Our nal point of emphasis for the architecture of grammar more generally is an insistence on a division of labor between syntax and morphology for the responsibility of word-formation. In the chapters that follow, we clearly partition the role of syntactic principles that refer to hierarchical structure and specier positions and enact head-movement and cliticization as distinct from postsyntactic requirements and operations that refer to feature-cooccurrence and linearity-based morphotactics. We argue throughout the book that one of the most important (and often underdiscussed) aspects of a model of grammar called Distributed Morphology is the fact that processes responsible for creating well-formed words are distributed across at least three distinct modules of linguistic computation. In the following sections, we provide an overview of the canonical aspects of the theory of Distributed Morphology. In the chapters that follow, we will propose revisions and elaboration of the theory, but in this chapter, we present the basic assumptions of the theory.
Section 1.2 Distributed Morphology and the Division of Labor in Word-Formation 1.2 Distributed Morphology and the Division of Labor in Word-Formation 1.2.1 An Overview of the Serial and Modular Components
19
A key component of the overall analysis we adopt is that the -sensitive restrictions operating throughout the auxiliary complex are parceled out into domains that may be hierarchical, morphological, or morphophonological, each operating with their own principles. In Figure 1.1, the basic components of the model are shown. Syntactic operations include Merge, cliticization, Movement, and Agree. Distributed Morphology adopts the basic Y-Model" of grammar, in which syntactic structurebuilding creates hierarchical relations in a tree-structure that is then independently interpreted by the separate modules of logical form (LF), and phonological form (PF) which includes morphological structure. The model is derivational, in the sense that structure-changing operations are sequenced in a particular order (intrinsically determined at times), and that the application of any operation creates an new representation which can then be subject to further operations. The application of any of these operations, syntactic or morphological, is local" in the sense that it is only sensitive to whether a structural description is met, without lookback" to earlier derivational stages or lookahead" to eventual later consequences of rule application. We label the entire path of derivational modules from the conclusion of syntax to the onset of phonological computation the Spellout process, and this book is devoted to articulating the structure of this Spellout. After syntactic operations are complete, the initial post-syntactic module is labeled the Exponence conversion component. This module is responsible for the second step of the two-step process of Agreement that we adopt, in which the operation Agree is decomposed into the establishment of agreement, occurring within the syntax, and the actual copying of phi-features from goal to probe, which is accomplished through an operation called Agree-Copy, in this rst module. This module also is the locus of ssion operations, that split person and number features into two separate terminals-of-exponence, even when they originate from the same, single syntactic element. The Exponence conversion component is thus generally responsible for the initial steps of syntax-morphology mapping: following-up Agree by actually going and copying the features from Goal to Probe, and setting up the morphological positions in which features are realized. The operations within this component are discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. While the rst post-syntactic module is essentially responsible for setting up" the post-syntactic component with the ingredients needed on the road to exponence, namely values of particular features and positions-of-exponence in which they are to be realized, the second post-syntactic module that we identify in our architecture is the Feature Markedness module. This component is one in which well-formedness is evaluated through specic morphotactic constraints on feature co-occurrence, which may call for the enactment of repair operations that delete these features, or the terminals containing them. Among the operations in this component that we focus on are the syntagmatic markedness-triggered processes of Participant-Dissimilation and Plural Clitic Impoverishment, both discussed in Chapter 4. The third post-syntactic module is responsible for what we term morphological concord, namely, the operations responsible for setting up particular terminals for Vocabulary Insertion based on post-syntactic structural descriptions. These operations involve feature-insertion, though crucially only features that are particular to morphology. Among these, for example, is the operation of
20
SYNTAX Merge & Move Agree Cliticization Absolutive Promotion
POSTSYNTAX Exponence Conversion Agree-Copy Fission ... Feature Markedness Participant Dissimilation Plural Clitic Impoverishment ... Morphological Concord Have-Insertion Complementizer Agreement ... L INEARIZATION Linear Operations Clitic Metathesis and Doubling ... VOCABULARY I NSERTION Figure 1.1: An overview of the serial and modular architecture of Basque auxiliary word-formation
Section 1.2 Distributed Morphology and the Division of Labor in Word-Formation
21
Have-Insertion, which is responsible for the apparent voice-sensitive allomorphy of the auxiliary root as have or be. The determination of this allomorphy is based on the presence or absence of a particular clitic adjoined to the C head, which itself is determined by operations within the FeatureMarkedness module that may delete such a clitic for post-syntactic reasons. As such, this concord process, and the other operations in the Morphological Concord module, necessarily follow the Feature Markedness module. While all modules preceding the Morphological Concord component operate on features that are introduced by the syntax, this module is dedicated to specically post-syntactic features.1 Linearization constitutes a denitive anchor point" in the post-syntactic derivation, necessarily providing a clean divide between operations insensitive to the linear order of terminals, occurring before linearization, and those which are sensitive to linear-based ordering morphotactics among terminals, thereby following linearization. We provide an list of rules for mapping hierarchical, unlinearized word-trees into linear order in Chapter 2, Section 2.2. The operations that follow linearization, discussed in detail in Chapter 5, include metathesis and doubling phenomena, which occur in order to re-order particular terminals-of-exponence according to modular well-formedness conditions, and necessarily apply prior to Vocabulary Insertion. Vocabulary Insertion constitutes the nal stage of the post-syntactic component before phonological rules themselves begin to apply on the underlying representations of exponed terminals. The allomorphy that occurs for particular morphemes in the auxiliary complex is thus fed by the entire suite of preceding operations, including feature-markedness, which delete certain features, morphological concord, which determines the value for voice-sensitive allomorphy, and clitic metathesis, which alters the linear order of given terminals. This entire ow of information from syntactic structure-building to phonological rule application is schematized in Figure 1.1, and while the details of the particular modules are provided in Chapters 25, the intermodular interactions that illustrate the overall ordered architecture are discussed in Chapter 6. 1.2.2 An Overview of DM Elements and Operations In this section we provide brief introductions to some of the key data structures and operations on them that yield the nal realization of the auxiliary complex. In discussing them, we provide some of the necessary background that is shared by most researchers of Distributed Morphology, as well as highlighting places in which our analysis diverges from, or constitutes a further development of, the way these elements are traditionally understood. The discussion also contains pointers, where relevant, to specic parts of the book where readers may directly seek further explanation. Syntactic structure-building The basic structure building operation within minimalist syntax is Merge, an operation that creates sisterhood relations between syntactic categories and creates a labeled mother node. Distributed Morphology adopts a model of grammar in which syntactic computation precedes the module of grammar called Morphological Structure. That is to say, words do not enter the syntax fully inected, as in lexicalist theories of grammar. Rather, lexical items such as verbs pick up abstract inectional features through a mechanism of Agree, which is a feature-copying relation. Under Agree, an item such as a verb (called the Probe) initiates a search. The Probe nds the closest noun phrase under c-command (called the Goal), and copies
1 As such, it would also be the locus of the introduction of conjugation class features and theme vowels in languages
(unlike Basque) that have these, such as the Indo-European and Bantu languages.
22
the -features (e.g., Person, Number, and Gender) to itself. These features are abstract binary features with values such as [+participant], [+feminine], etc. Within the syntax, syntactic heads (of X 0 category) such as the verbal root, Aspect and Tense may form more complex, branching terminals through the operation of head movement. Finally, the operation of cliticization may enact structure-building in which phrasal categories (i.e. XPs) move to designated host positions. Features The morphosyntactic features that syntax and morphology work with are chosen from a universal set of limited binary features, provided in the following list. We adopt a viewpoint in which these morphosyntactic features represent binary-valued predicates that can serve as the input to functions such as negation and feature-value identity (alpha rules"). (2)
-features (Halle 1997, Harbour 2006, Nevins 2007) a. [ author] (distinguishes 1st person from 2nd and 3rd person) b. [ participant] (distinguishes 1st and 2nd person from 3rd person) c. [ colloquial] (distinguishes 2nd person formal from 2nd person colloquial) d. [ singular] (distinguishes plural from singular number) e. [ feminine] (distinguishes feminine from masculine gender)
Tense [ past] (distinguishes past from non-past tense) Case (Calabrese 2008) a. [+Motion, Peripheral] = ergative b. [+Motion, +Peripheral] = dative c. [Motion, Peripheral] = absolutive
(3) (4)
Certain terminals enter the syntax with features valued. For example, a pronoun or noun phrase (henceforth referred to as DPs) enters the syntax with its features for [ author], [ participant], [ plural], and [ feminine] already specied, and a tense node enters with its value for [ past] already specied. Other terminals enter the syntax with certain features unvalued, a status notated as [uF] (e.g. [u author]), and must obtain values for these features as a result of the operation Agree. We assume that the default situation is that all unvalued features on a terminal node are searched-for together, in other words, a Probe searching for [ author] and [ participant] will copy these from the same Goal if they are both found on it. Agree-Link and Agree-Copy As outlined above, we adopt a two-step model of agreement, described in detail in Chapter 4, Section 4.2. The Agree procedure, as proposed by Chomsky (2001) and related work, is fractionated into two operations: one syntactic, and one post-syntactic. The rst of these is Agree-Link, whereby a Probe establishes an Agree relation (a link, or a contract to copy feature-values", of sorts) in the syntax, based on hierarchical relations and locality. The second of these is -Agree-Copy, occurring in the rst Exponence conversion module, in which the actual -features of G are copied onto P. The division of Agree into these steps is both conceptually and empirically motivated, and follows prior work. The conceptual motivation for decoupling these operations is based on the principle that syntactic structure building itself is entirely devoted to establishing relations among terminals, such as sisterhood, dominance, c-command, and Agree-linking. Under this view, therefore, syntax has no ability to manipulate at the level of indi-
Section 1.2 Distributed Morphology and the Division of Labor in Word-Formation
23
vidual features, and as such, the actual copying of specic feature-values must be deferred until the post-syntactic component. The empirical motivation is based on the fact that certain very specic operations may intervene between these two steps, thereby altering the outcome of Agree-Copy. Realizational morphology The series of syntactic operations outlined above Merge, Agree, head-movement, and cliticization all operate on syntactic objects that bear category labels and morphosyntactic features, but importantly, do not involve any phonological content. Distributed Morphology, like other realizational theories of morphology, adopts the view that inectional morphology is a reection of what occurred in the syntax, that necessarily follows the establishment of feature-copying relations. Morphological structure itself has the task of converting abstract morphosyntactic features (such as [past, singular], etc.) into phonological content (such as prexes, morphemes, etc.). This conversion process is what is called Spellout, and this book is dedicated to elaborating the structure of the Spellout procedure. The M-Word domain The domain for both feature-markedness and linearity-based morphotactic restrictions mentioned below is the M-Word, a morphosyntactic unit dened based on the notion of projection. The M-Word is dened by an X 0 projection that is not directly dominated by any other X0 projection. Morphological well-formedness Importantly, the module of Morphological Structure has its own proprietary well-formedness requirements, some of which are universal and some of which are language-specic. Thus, for example, while there is no problem in the syntax for a single syntactic terminal to contain both the features [+author] (representing 1st person) and [+feminine], a great majority of the worlds languages do not allow these two features to co-occur within inectional morphology. In languages that disallow the co-occurence of [+author, +feminine] as explicitly morphologically realized, this is due to a well-formedness requirement specic to the level of Morphological Structure that bans the co-occurrence of these two feature-values within the same morphological word. Whenever the syntax generates such a structure and delivers it to the morphology, certain operations must apply in order to pass the well-formedness requirements of this grammatical module. One of the fundamental operations that takes place in order to resolve morphological feature co-occurrence requirements is the mechanism of impoverishment, a deletion rule with a structural description and a structural change that eliminates one or more features from a terminal node. Impoverishment operations Impoverishment, rst proposed as a mechanism by Bonet (1991) and Noyer (1992), enacts deletion of a morphological feature within a certain morphosyntactic environment. Impoverishment rules have the ultimate effect of neutralization of an otherwise existing opposition. For example, consider a deletion rule such as [+feminine] 0 / _ [+author]. This / rule has the structural description of the two feature-value pairs [+feminine, +author], and the structural change of deleting the rst of these features. As an effect of this rule, there will be no gender distinction made between masculine and feminine in the same morpheme (or morphological word) in which 1st person is expressed. In other words, a consequence of this impoverishment rule is that the gender distinction for this noun phrase (which is perhaps even still expressed on participles or adjectives that lack person features) is neutralized on the affected node, failing to be morphologically expressed. Importantly, in this book we adopt the point of view under which
24
impoverishment rules are motivated, and are a response to universal and/or language particular markedness statements. Much like phonological rules of deletion (e.g. coronal stop deletion in consonant clusters, or vowel height neutralization in unstressed syllables), morphological deletion rules may be triggered by a particular structural description while varying in how many features they delete in their structural change. Obliteration operations Obliteration is the most radical type of deletion operation that can occur at morphological structure. Unlike impoverishment rules, which delete a feature on a terminal, obliteration rules delete an entire terminal. (We use the terms terminal node and node interchangeably in the text). For example, while an impoverishment rule might delete [+feminine] on a T0 node that also contains [+author], an obliteration rule would delete the entire T0 node. Obliteration operations are a more radical type of repair operation in response to a markedness (or well-formedness) requirement. Their presence can be diagnosed particularly in the context of allomorphy rules that are sensitive to the presence or absence of a node. Fission Fission is an operation that transforms one terminal node into two, and in doing so splits up the features that previously co-occured within a single node. In this book, we depart from previous treatments of ssion (e.g. Halle (1997)) and explicitly characterize Fission operations as the response to a morphological well-formedness requirement that two features (e.g. [singular] and [+participant]) cannot co-occur within the same terminal node, and must be separated from each other into two distinct terminals-of-exponence. Linearization The syntactic computation has the function of enacting Merge, Agree, and ReMerge operations (these latter of which operate only in concert with Agree). Merge and Re-Merge affect nodes, while Agree affects features. The syntactic computation does not operate directly on phonological content, nor does it contain statements of linear order only of sisterhood and dominance. Spellout to PF, therefore, has two major functions: to convert morphosyntactic features into phonological content, and to convert hierarchical dominance relations into relations of linear precedence. The conversion of linearly-unordered hierarchical relations into a total order of linear precedence is accomplished by the procedure of Linearization. Linearization is a deterministic process that occurs post-syntactically at a specic point within the Spellout procedure. Metathesis and doubling operations One of the most pervasive restrictions found throughout Basque auxiliaries is a kind of second-position requirement on the auxiliary root itself, which we dub Noninitiality. This constraint demands that the auxiliary root have a terminal to its left, a result that can be achieved in three separate ways: one, as a consequence of the linearization process itself, if it should linearize a clitic (say, corresponding to the absolutive argument) to the left of T; second, through the insertion of an epenthetic morpheme with no correspondent in the syntax, whose purpose is specically to satisfy this Noninitiality requirement, and nally, through metathesis operations, that may re-order the sequence that results from the linearization procedure. In our proposal, these metathesis operations are achieved through the Generalized Reduplication formalism for metathesis, adopted from Harris and Halle (2005). This formalism has the property of closely linking together the phenomena of metathesis (reordering A B as B A) and doubling (reordering A B as A B A or B A B), which is extremely useful in understanding cross-dialectal microvariation.
Section 1.3 The Basque language
25
Vocabulary Insertion Vocabulary Insertion is the only operation of the four discussed here that consistently occurs for all terminals, even if no operations of impoverishment, obliteration, metathesis, or ssion apply. Vocabulary insertion follows the application of all of these three other operations. While these three other operations modify features or terminals (either by deleting features, deleting terminals, or cleaving features into separate terminals), vocabulary insertion is the most important process in morphological structure the one that literally trades morphosyntactic features for phonological content. Vocabulary insertion is a process that occurs at the unit of the terminal node, often called a terminal-of-exponence when specically referring to the process of exponing (or realizing with phonological content) the assorted morphosyntactic features that are present at that node. Vocabulary Insertion is a process of choosing, for each terminal node, a Vocabulary Item that optimally realizes the features at that node. The choice of which Vocabulary Item to use at a node is based on which one matches the most features of that node, and does not contain extraneous features not present at the node itself. For this reason, it is said that Vocabulary Insertion is guided by the Subset Principle (Halle 1997), which states that the Vocabulary Item that realizes the maximal subset of morphosyntactic features at the node is the one chosen for insertion. For many types of syntactic terminals, there is an Elsewhere Item, one which carries very few inherent features (i.e. it is underspecied), and for this reason is compatible with a wide variety of apparently homogeneous feature-bundles. In this book, we propose a modication of Halles (1997) formulation of the Subset Principle, in which the Category feature in the specication of a Vocabulary Item and its contextual restriction is taken into account before comparison of any other features. One of the results of the interaction of impoverishment rules (which necessarily precede vocabulary insertion) and vocabulary insertion is that impoverishment rules delete morphosyntactic features, thus rendering richer Vocabulary Items ineligible for insertion, and thus leading to emergence of the less specied" item being used to realize a terminal, often the elsewhere item. Since Vocabulary Insertion the supplying of a linguistic expression with phonological content follows all syntactic computation as well as morphology-specic adjustments to the structure generated by syntax, the timing of this operation with respect to others is sometimes called Late Insertion.
1.3 The Basque language In this Section, we provide some necessary background on the Basque language. Subsection 3.1 provides same basic geographic and demographic description, including a brief overview of main dialectal distinctions, as well as the location of the three local varieties that are the focus of this book (Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio) within the dialectal continuum of the language. Subsection 3.2 summarizes the main features of Basque orthography used in this book, as well as certain conventions that we use in representing examples. The Section concludes in 3.3 with a summary of our sources of data. 1.3.1 Geographic and demographic background The Basque Country is a small region in Europe that extends from Northeastern Spain across the Pyrenees to Southeastern France (Figure 1.2). There are seven Basque provinces: Bizkaia
26
Figure 1.2: Location of the Basque Country and the seven Basque provinces
(often referred to as Biscay in English), Gipuzkoa (Guipuscoa), Araba (Alava), and Nafarroa (Navarre) are under Spanish sovereignty, and Lapurdi (Labourd), Nafarroa Beherea (Low Navarre) and Zuberoa (Soule) are under French rule. Basque is spoken to different degrees in all seven provinces, and, together with Spanish, it is the ofcial language of the Basque Autonomous Community, a Spanish administrative region formed by the provinces of Bizkaia, Gipuzkoa and Araba and governed by the Basque Government. The external history of Basque is fairly complex, especially in recent years (Trask 1997:149, Hualde 2003c). This makes it fairly difcult to estimate the number of speakers of this language. According to the Department of Culture of the Government of the Basque Autonomous Community, there were 665, 750 speakers of Basque of age 16 and older in all of the Basque Country in 2006.2 This number includes both native and non-native speakers of varying degrees of uency, and with very rare exceptions they are all bilingual speakers of Spanish or French.3 The Basque grammatical tradition groups all current varieties of this language into six dialects that (very roughly) correspond to six provinces: Biscayan, Guipuscoan, High Navarrese, Labourdin, Low Navarrese, and Souletin (Figure 1.3).4 The standard dialect of Basque is called Batua (unied). It was developed starting in the 1960s by Euskaltzaindia, the Royal Academy of the Basque Language. Although it incorporates features of all dialects, it is largely based on Guipuscoan. It is the main dialect used in education, the media and the administration of the Basque Government. Previous work on Basque verbal morphology addressing these issues in the generative framework typically does not concentrate on any local varieties of the language (though see Rezac
2 The source for these data is the Department of Culture of the Government of the Basque Autonomous Community,
and they are available at http://www1.euskadi.net/euskara_adierazleak/indice.apl. According to the same source, the total number of inhabitants of age 16 or older in the Basque Country was 2, 589, 629 in 2006. 3 Many of these speakers have learned Basque as a second language in an academic setting. There are no reliable statistics on the number of native speakers of the language. According to the same source, 406,466 speakers are Basque-dominant and balanced bilinguals. 4 The black lines in the map in Figure 1.3 represent borders of provinces. The map also includes the now extinct Roncalais dialect.
27
Figure 1.3: Basque dialects
(2006)). However, we believe that signicant progress can be made in understanding the division of labor between syntactic and postsyntactic operations by looking at specic dialects thoroughly. The main empiricial focus of this book are the varieties spoken in three towns in the Biscayan dialect area: Lekeitio, Ondarru and Zamudio. One of our main sources of data is de Yrizar 1992, where the Biscayan dialect is split up into a hierarchy of subdialects, varieties and subvarieties. Table 1.1 provides the location of Lekeitio, Ondarru and Zamudio Basque in this dialectal taxonomy according to de Yrizar (1992:vol. 1, 14, 1014, 542546).5 In this book, we refer to the Basque spoken in these and other places in the Basque Country as either dialects or varieties, except in cases where these terminological distinctions are crucial. Detailed descriptions and analysis of the auxiliary systems of all three varieties are given in the rest of this book. The number of Basque speakers age 5 and older in 2001 in each of the three towns is given in table 1.2.6 It is important to note that these three varieties are not necessarily representative of dialecIn giving the names of these and other varieties and the towns they are spoken in, we have adopted standard conventions used by Basque speakers. For instance, our name for the town of Ondarru is in common use both by people from this town and many others, but it is often referred to as Ondarroa (Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina 2003) or Ondrroa (de Yrizar 1992) in the literature, and the name of the town of Lekeitio is given as Lequeitio in de Yrizar 1992. Similarly, the names for the varieties of Markina and Plentzia in Table 1.1 are Marquina and Plencia in de Yrizar 1992. 6 See http://www1.euskadi.net/euskara_adierazleak/indice.apl. This source does not distinguish among speakers of the local variety and those who speak only Batua. As far as we have been able to nd out, there are no reliable current statistics on the number of speakers of local varieties of Basque. de Yrizar 1992:vol. 1 estimates that in 1,970, there were a total of 6,400 speakers of Basque in Lekeitio (p. 91), 7,300 in Ondarru (p. 217) and 1,400 in Zamudio (p. 587). Since Batua had not been developed yet and the teaching of Basque was very rare at that time, these gures seem to be more reliable indicators of the number of speakers of each variety.
5
28
Table 1.1: Dialectal classication of Lekeitio, Ondarru and Zamudio Basque Lekeitio Dialect Biscayan Subdialect Eastern Variety Markina Subvariety Northwestern Ondarru Biscayan Eastern Markina Ondarru Zamudio Biscayan Western Plentzia Southern
tal variation in Basque, not even in the Biscayan dialect. The Biscayan split between Western and Eastern subdialects is reected in some of the aspects of the realization of auxiliaries in Zamudio (Western) and Lekeitio/Ondarru (Eastern), as discussed at various points in Chapter 3 (especially Section 6). However, we have not found any interesting correlation between established dialectal boundaries and variation in the syntactic and morphological operations that are the main foci of this book, such as multiple agreement in T (Chapters 23), Absolutive Promotion (Chapter 2), [+Participant]-Dissimilation (4), and Enclitic Metathesis (Chapter 5). The reason for choosing these three was mainly that their nite auxiliary paradigms illustrate many of the syntax-morphology interactions that are of interest for our purposes. In particular, Lekeitio is one of the typical examples of a variety illustrating multiple agreement, Zamudio has several cases of [+Participant]-Dissimilation, and Ondarru exhibits both Absolutive Promotion and [+Participant]Dissimilation, whose interaction provides crucial evidence for the interaction of syntactic and morphological operations proposed in this book and discussed in detail in Chapter 6. Finally, all three varieties have Enclitic Metathesis and illustrate the type of dialectal variation in the application of this rule discussed in Chapter 5. As will be shown throughout the present study, these three varieties are similar enough to describe cross-dialectal generalizations, but differences between them allow us to draw interesting conclusions about the sources of microvariation in verbal syntax and morphology in Basque. The resulting analysis is thus exhaustive in that it provides detailed accounts of the morphosyntax and morphophonology of auxiliaries in different varieties, and it explains these differences based on a general claims about Basque verbs that are couched in a constrained theory of morphology. The reader should also note that the dialects discussed in this book are not standard varieties of Basque, in any usual sense of the term standard. First, they differ signicanly from Batua, especially in their auxiliary forms. Second, they are also different from other standardized dialects, such as literary Biscayan and Guipuscoan. Third, they are typically not written by their native speakers; unlike the standard dialects mentioned above, they are mostly spoken varieties
Table 1.2: Number of speakers age 5 and older in 2001 in Lekeitio, Ondarru and Zamudio Town Lekeitio Ondarru Zamudio Basque speakers 6, 103 7, 825 1, 426 Total 7, 040 9, 329 2, 918
29
(see Subsection 3.2 below for our conventions in adapting Batua orthography in representing examples from these varieties). However, native speakers have sharp prescriptive intuitions about their local nonstandard varieties. For instance, both Ergative Impoverishment and Differential Object Marking (Subsection 4.1 below) are very common in Basque, but they are also perceived to be due to Spanish inuence, and therefore highly stigmatized even in local spoken varieties. We occasionally use the term substandard in this book to refer to grammatical phenomena of this latter type only, with the understanding that all varieties discussed here are substandard in a more general sense. 1.3.2 Orthography and other conventions in representing Basque sentences Following standard practice in the literature, the orthography in the examples given this book is based on Batua orthography, adapted to reect some phonological idiosyncrasies of the Biscayan varieties studied here. We limit out comments here to some salient features of Basque spelling, sufcient for the reader not familiar with Basque phonology and orthography. For further details, see Hualde 2003e. We have also included a table summarizing these conventions in the front matter of this book (see page 15). In Basque phonology the alveolar tap [R] and trill [r] are contrastive intervocalically. In this context, they are distinguished in the orthography as r vs. rr, respectively. In other contexts, r is used (and corresponds to a tap or a trill, depending on context). Many Basque dialects distinguish between two distinct places among voiceless alveolar sibilants: apical (fricative s [s] and affricate ts []) and laminal (z [s] and tz []). All Biscayan dialects, including the ones studied here, have neutralized this place distinction, keeping only the apical fricative s and the laminal affricate tz. Basque also has a complex (alveolo-)palatal consonant system, due in part to palatalization processes subject to dialectal variation. This justies the use of other orthographical conventions the reader might not be familiar with. There are two voiceless alveolopalatal sibilants: fricative [S] and affricate [], represented in spelling as x and tx, respectively. Included in this category are also several consonants that are the result of palatalization: (5) Palatalized consonants a. Palatalized n: , a palatal nasal []. b. Palatalized d: dd, a voiced palatal stop []. c. Palatalized t: tt, a voiceless palatal stop [c]. d. Palatalized l: ll, a palatal lateral [L].
The manner and in some cases the place of articulation of the last three sounds have undergone some change relatively recently. Thus, for younger speakers dd is a voiced alveolopalatal affricate [], tt is a voiceless aleveolopalatal affricate [], and ll is a voiced palatal fricative []. The last two sounds have respectively merged with the ones represented as tx (discussed above) and y (see below). Following standard conventions in Basque writing, we keep tt-tx and ll-y separate in the orthography, with one exception discussed in Subsection 3.3 below. Several Spanish borrowings have a voiced palatal fricative [] (with several allophones), and are represented with a y in the orthography. In some Basque dialects, this is also the pronunciation of orthographic j, but in Ondarru and Zamudio this spelling corresponds to a voiced velar fricative
30
[x]. Lekeitio has an additional voiced alveolopalatal fricative [Z], spelled as dx. Word-initial dx in this dialect is etymologically related to word-initial j in other dialects. Since the main focus of this book is the morphology of Basque nite auxiliaries, we adopt several conventions in representing these words in our examples. Consider the following illustrative example: (6) Ni-k Miren-ei liburu-0 / emo-n n -e -tz -n. (>netzan) I-ERG Miren-DAT book-ABS . SG give-PRF CL . E .1. SG -PST.3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CPST I gave the book to Miren. (Ondarru)
First, the auxiliary n-e-tz-n is given in italics to highlight it with respect to the rest of the sentence. Second, space breaks are used to separate its component morphemes, as a visual aid to align the exponents on the rst line with the glosses in the second.7 Finally, unlike other words, auxiliaries are given with an orthography more faithfully representing their underlying form. This also facilitates the alignment of auxiliary morphemes with their glosses. For instance, the object liburu (from underlying liburo-a) is given in its surface form, but n-e-tz-n is the underlying form of the auxiliary in this example. In cases where the underlying form differs from the surface form, the latter is given in parentheses, as in the example above. 1.3.3 Sources of data The sources for the data reported in this book are of two types. First, we have done eldwork for both Ondarru and Zamudio Basque. Most of the Ondarru data are from eldwork conducted at different times between 1998 and 2010, and part of the Zamudio data are from eldwork conducted in that town in June of 2007. We have also obtained data from Lekeitio, Ondarru, Zamudio, and other dialects from the theoretical and descriptive literature on Basque. Specically, most Lekeitio auxiliary forms are from Hualde et al. 1994:117135, and most Zamudio forms are from Gaminde 2000:371385. Finally, we have complemented all these sources with de Yrizar 1992, a two volume compilation of all attested auxiliary forms in the present and past indicative tense in all subdialects, varieties and subvarieties of Biscayan. In that work, the Lekeitio forms are given in volume 1, pages 87141 (which includes all towns belonging to the same subvariety as Lekeitio), the Ondarru forms in volume 1, pages 213232, and the Zamudio forms in volume 1, pages 583625 (which includes all towns belonging to the same subvariety as Zamudio). The surface forms of all auxiliaries accounted for in this book are in the Tables in the Appendix. Although we have tried to have uniform paradigms for all three dialects by using a single source for each dialect, the main sources given above have several paradigm gaps, especially in past tense ditransitive auxiliaries (Table 6 in the Appendix). Most of these gaps are due to Differential Object Marking (DOM), where (rst and second person) animate direct objects are marked with dative instead of absolutive case (Subsection 4.1 below). These arguments thus trigger dative cliticization, and the corresponding auxiliaries are ditransitive instead of monotransitive in form. Although highly stigmatized, DOM is widespread in colloquial spoken Biscayan. It is strongly preferred over absolutive marking for rst and second person direct objects, and is in fact obligatory for many speakers in past monotransitive sentences, which accounts for the gaps mentioned above. We ll these gaps with data from de Yrizar 1992 (see previous paragraph for specic page numbers),
7 See
Subsection 4.3 for a brief explanation of glosses in auxiliary forms.
Section 1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology
31
which contains full indicative paradigms for the three dialects. Although this helps in providing a full account of auxiliaries, it should be noted that these forms from de Yrizar 1992 are not in common use.8 Forms taken from this source are in italics in the Tables in the Appendix. A related issue has to do with cases where a given source gives more than one form for a given paradigm cell. For the sake of uniformity, we have provided only one form for each paradigm cell in the Appendix. At several points in Chapters 3 and 5, we note any variation found in these sources, as well as a sketch of how our analysis can account this variation. After each Basque example in this book, we give the name of the dialect it belongs to, as well as the source (unless the data was obtained from our own eldwork). In order to provide a uniform representation of all Basque words and sentences, we adapt examples from these sources in several ways. First, we adhere to the orthographic conventions given in Subsection 3.2 above. For example, all instances of orthographic z in Biscayan in our sources are replaced with s, since the z-s distinction has been neutralized in favor of the latter in Biscayan varieties.9 The voiced alveolopalatal fricative [Z] in Lekeitio is represented as in Hualde et al. 1994, but we represent it as dx. This work also distinguishes between the glide w and the vowel u, we only use the latter. Hualde et al. 1994 is also systematic in representing pitch accents using different diacritics, but these have been eliminated altogether in our examples. These adaptations are due to standard conventions in representing local dialects, and do not affect any of the main claims made here. On the other hand, Hualde et al. 1994 is somewhat inconsistent in writing palatalized t in auxiliaries. Most of them are spelled with tt, which is more faithful to the speech of older speakers, but a few are spelled with tx, which is characteristic of younger speakers. We are not sure what the source of this variation is, and we represent all axiliaries with palatalized t in this dialect with tx, which thus represents the speech of younger speakers. We also consistently represent auxiliaries as words separated from other words in the sentence. This must be taken into account when checking the original sources, where auxiliaries are sometimes written as part of the preceding word, often due to the fact that they can behave as prosodic clitics. This adaptation of examples is justied given our focus on the syntax and morphology of auxiliaries, which behave as separate words in this respect. 1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology In this Section we offer an overview of the main features of Basque grammar that are of interest for our purposes. More detailed descriptions can be found in Laka 1996, Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina 2003 and de Rijk 2007. See also Hualde et al. 1994 for a detailed description of Lekeitio Basque. A description of the Ondarru dialect can be found in Rotaetxe 1978 (written in Spanish), and some of the main features of Zamudio Basque are given in Gaminde 2000 (written in Basque). We concentrate here on three aspects of Basque grammar: argument structure and case (Subsection 4.1, the structure of DPs (4.2), and different aspects of verbal syntax (4.34.5). The latter Sections also give an outline of our major claims about nite verbal morphosyntax in Basque, to be explored in more depth in the rest of this book.
instance, Gaminde (2000:373) notes that the few monotransitive auxiliaries with a rst or second absolutive clitic that he has gathered are all from older speakers (in their 60s or 70s). Even these speakers prefer DOM-triggered ditransitive forms. 9 Similarly, all instances of ts in Biscayan are replaced with tz.
8 For
32 1.4.1 Argument Structure and case
Although it can be classied as a free word order or discourse-congurational language, neutral Basque sentences are SOVAux, reecting a largely head-nal syntax. The following are some illustrative examples: (7) Word order in Basque a. Lau aste-an ego-n n -as geixorik. four week-IN be-PRF CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1. SG sick Ive been sick for four weeks. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:367) b. Su-k ni-0 / ikus-i n -a -su. you(Sg)-ERG me-ABS see-PRF CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1 SG -CL . E .2. SG You(Sg) have seen me. (Ondarru) c. Liburu-a emo-n d -o -tz -t (>dotzat) lagun-ari. book-ABS . SG give-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG friend-DAT. SG I have given the book to my friend. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:125)
As illustrated in the examples above, Basque is an ergative language with a rich case inectional system. Direct objects of transitive verbs (DO) and subjects of unaccusatives (S) are marked as absolutive, and ergative is reserved for transitive subjects (A).10 Basque is not a split ergative language along tense/aspectual or person/animacy lines: the generalizations given above hold regardless of these factors. Indirect objects (IO) are marked with dative case. Transitive subjects are generated in the specier of v, and direct objects and unaccusative objects are the complements of V. Abstracting away from higher functional projections, monotransitive and unaccusative sentences have the following structures: (8) Monotransitive sentences vP AErg VP DOAbs (9) V v v
Intransitive sentences vP VP SAbs V v
We assume that ergative case is an inherent case assigned by transitive v to the external argument in its specier (see Woolford (2006), Holgun (2007), among others). Absolutive on the internal argument (S or O) is the default case in Basque, and does not require case assignment of any sort. We assume that these arguments remain caseless in the syntax, and are assigned unmarked
10 Subjects
of unergative verbs also bear ergative case. See Section 5 in Chapter 2 for examples.
33
absolutive case features postsyntactically. Evidence that T is not involved in either ergative or absolutive case assignment comes from nonnite clauses, where the distribution of cases in arguments is identical to nite clauses: (10) a. [ Jon-ek plater-ak garbi-tzi ] nai d -o -t. [ Jon-ERG plate-ABS . PL wash-NF ] want L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG I want Jon to wash the dishes. [ Jon-0 ju-ti ] nai d -o / -t. [ Jon-ABS go-NF ] want L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG I want Jon to go.
(Ondarru)
b.
(Ondarru)
As in nite clauses, subjects of transitive predicates are ergative, and subjects of intransitives and direct objects are absolutive. Since case assignment by T is typical only of nite T, the fact that the distribution of absolutive and ergative case is the same in nite and nonnite clauses provides evidence that this head is not involved in assigning these cases. This is compatible with the claims made above that ergative is assigned by v, and that absolutive is a default case.11 With one exception noted below, indirect objects are generated above absolutive arguments. They are generated in the specier of the head Appl, and are assigned inherent dative case by it. In this book, we concentrate on two types of indirect objects: those appearing in ditransitive sentences, and experiencer arguments in intransitive psych-predicates. Ditransitive sentences involve a low Appl projection generated below VP (Pylkknen 2002): (11) Ditransitive sentences vP AErg VP ApplP IODat Appl Appl V v v
DOAbs
See Elordieta 2001:Chapter 5 for arguments that the indirect object is generated higher than the direct object in Basque ditransitives. Evidence that indirect objects in ditransitives involve a low Appl head (as opposed to a high one) in Pylkknens sense comes from the behavior of secondary depictive predicates (Pylkknen 2002:2642): (12) Indirect objects and depictive predicates Ni-k Jon-ei aulki-xe emo-n n -e -tz -n (>netzan) I-ERG Jon-DAT chair-ABS . SG give-PRF CL . E .1. SG -PST.3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CPST
among others, Laka 1993b, Rezac 2004 and Fernndez and Albizu 2000 for alternative theories of case assignment in Basque.
11 See,
34 moskortu-te/apurtu-te. get.drunk-NF /break-NF I gave Jon the book drunk/broken.
(Ondarru)
The depictives moskortute/apurtute can be understood as being predicated of the subject nik I or the direct object liburu book, but not of the indirect object Jonei Jon. This property is typical of low applicative indirect objects. Certain psych-predicates provide examples of indirect objects in intransitive (unaccusative) sentences: (13) Jon-ei ardau-0 / gusta-ten g -a -ko. Jon.DAT wine-ABS . SG like-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG Jon likes wine.
(Ondarru)
We assume that these experiencer arguments are generated in the specier of an Appl head above VP:12 (14) Applicative intransitive sentences vP ApplP IODat Appl VP Appl SAbs V v
Evidence that the dative experiencer is generated above the absolutive argument in these psychpredicates is provided in Joppen and Wunderlich 1995, Ortiz de Urbina 2003a:598599, Artiagoitia 2003c:630632, and Rezac 2008:7076. These dative-absolutive frame predicates contrast with certain intransitive movement verbs that have an optional dative goal argument: (15) Karta bat-0 / Miren-ei alla-0 / g -a -ko. letter one-ABS Miren-DAT arrive-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG A letter arrived to Miren.
(Ondarru)
In the latter, the absolutive argument is generated above the dative argument, as demonstrated by the same type of arguments showing that the c-command order is the reverse in dative experiencer psych-predicates (see references cited above). As discussed in Rezac 2008:7076, this difference between these predicate types correlates with Person-Case Constraint (PCC) effects (see also Albizu 1997:910): they arise consistently only with predicates where the dative is generated higher than the absolutive. Accordingly, Abolutive Promotion, a PCC-repair, only occurs in
This structure is adapted from Cuervo 2003:164173. She splits our V into a light v head and a categoryless root, a detail that is not relevant for our purposes. We also assume a v head above ApplP, in line with the structure proposed for other predicate types above.
12
35
this type of predicate. See Section 3 in Chapter 2 for our analysis of PCC effects in Basque and Absolutive Promotion. There are two types of exceptions to the case-based generalizations given above. First, ergative subjects can surface with absolutive case, due to a postsyntactic rule of Ergative Impoverishment discussed in Subsection 3.2 in Chapter 2. For instance, the ergative subject su-k in (7b) can surface as absolutive su-0. This feature is considered substandard, but is quite common in many spoken / Basque varieties. Although the argument can surface as absolutive, the clitic doubling it in the auxiliary is obligatorily ergative -su, not absolutive s- (see Subsection 4.4 below on cliticization). Another substandard but common feature of many spoken varieties is Differential Object Marking (DOM): animate direct object arguments can be marked as dative instead of absolutive, especially in the rst and second person (Hualde et al. 1994:125127, Austin 2006). For instance, the following is a grammatical alternative to (7b): (16) Differential Object Marking Su-k ni-ri ikus-i d -o -t -su. (>stasu) you(Sg)-ERG me-DAT see-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D.1. SG -CL . E .2. SG You(Sg) have seen me. (Ondarru)
As shown in this example, DOM has an effect on the auxiliary as well, since the clitic doubling the object is dative. We assume that these direct objects, along with the doubling clitic, are assigned dative case in the syntax. To conclude this overview of Basque clausal syntax, it is also relevant to point out that arguments with all three cases (absolutive, ergative, and dative) can be pro-dropped. For instance, both the subject and object in (7b) can be covert: (17) Extensive pro-drop: ergative and absolutive Ikus-i n -a -su. see-PRF CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1 SG -CL . E .2. SG You have seen me.
(Ondarru)
Similarly, the absolutive argument is covert in (7a), and so is the ergative subject in (7c). Pro-drop of a dative argument is illustrated in the following (cf. (13)): (18) Pro-drop of dative arguments Ardau-0 / gusta-ten g -a -ko. wine-ABS . SG like-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG He likes wine.
(Ondarru)
It is tempting to relate this property of arguments to the agreement and pronominal clitic morphemes that crossreference them in the nite auxiliary (Subsections 4.34.4). However, pro-drop of all three types of arguments is also possible in nonnite clauses, even though these do not have inected auxiliaries with pronominal clitics or agreement. For instance, the embedded object in (19a) is null, and so are the subject and object in (19b).13
Basque has a complex system of nonnite sentence embedding. Nonnite verbs can bear a number of different inectional afxes, depending on the selecting verb and on meaning. Since these distinctions are not important here, we simply gloss all of them as NF. See Hualde 2003d, Artiagoitia 2003a:737752, 2003b:656710 and Oyharabal
13
36 (19)
Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout Pro-drop in nonnite clauses a. [ seu-k ei-ttia ] nai d -o -t. you(Sg)-ERG do-NF want L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG I want you(Sg) to do it. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:188) b. [ e-txi ] nai d -o -t. do-NF want L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG I want myself/you/him/etc. to do it. (Ondarru)
1.4.2 The syntax and morphology of DPs This Subsection provides a brief description of the morphology and internal syntax of DPs that will be sufcient for the discussion throughout the rest of the book. For more detailed descriptions, see Trask 2003 and Hualde 2003a, as well as Hualde et al. 1994:85109 for the Lekeitio variety. In Basque DPs, adjectival modiers follow the head noun, and while genitives precede it: (20) Nominal modiers a. lagun andi-xe friend great-ABS . SG the great friend (absolutive) b. etxe-ko dxaui-a house-LGEN . SG owner-ABS . SG the owner of the house (absolutive)
(Ondarru)
(Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:85)
Some determiners are initial in the DP, while others are DP-nal: (21) DP-initial determiners a. edosein geuse-0 / any thing-ABS anything (free choice; absolutive) b. sein gixon-0 / which man-ABS which man (absolutive) DP-nal determiners a. gixon bi-0 / man two-ABS two men (absolutive) b. nebarraba gusti-ek sibling all-ABS . PL all the siblings (absolutive)
(Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:36)
(Ondarru)
(22)
(Zamudio, Gaminde 2000
For descriptive purposes, we include quantiers such as numerals in the category of determiners, as illustrated above.
2003a:790795 for detailed descriptions of the facts, and Hualde et al. 1994:110117, 182209 for Lekeitio.
37
Table 1.3: Nonlocative cases of etxe house in Lekeitio Absolutive Def.Sg etxi-a Def.Pl etxi-ak Indef etxe-0 / Ergative etxi-ak etxi-ak etxe-k Dative etxi-ari etxi-ari etxe-ri Genitive etxi-en etxi-en etxe-n Benefactive etxi-entzat etxi-entzat etx-entzat Comitative etxi-agas etxi-aki etxe-gas
Table 1.4: Locative cases of etxe house in Lekeitio Inessive in/on/at Def.Sg etxi-an Def.Pl etxi-etan Indef etxe-tan Allative to etxe-ra etxi-etara etxe-tara Directional towards etxe-rutz etxi-etarutz etxe-tarutz Ablative from etx-tik etxi-etatik etxe-tatik Loc. genitive of, from etxe-ko etxi-etako etxe-tako
The last word in the DP is inected for deniteness, number, and case. Most examples given above are in absolutive form; other cases are exemplied by the following: (23) DPs in nonabsolutive cases a. boligrafo morau-agas pen purple-COM . SG with the purple pen b. edosein erri-ten any town-IN in any town (free choice)
Tables 1.31.4 contain the different inected forms of the noun etxe house in Lekeitio (adapted from Hualde et al. 1994:8795). These Tables reect the traditional distinction between nonlocative and locative cases in Basque, justied in large part on morphological grounds.14 Not included in these Tables is so-called partitive case inection. It only appears in absolutive position (i.e. in complementary distribution with this case), and seems to have a distribution similar to English-like negative polarity items (Etxepare 2003a:549-554). Its form is -ik (-rik after a vowel), and it is illustrated in the following example: (24) Es d -o -t (>tot) gixon-ik ikus-i. not L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG man-PART see-PRF I havent seen any men. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:92)
As shown in this example, its form is -ik (-rik after a vowel), and it is not compatible with number inection (probably due to the fact that it is indenite; see below). Since nominal inection attaches only to the last word (and there is no DP-internal agreement),
shown in Tables 1.31.4, denite singular and plural forms are segmentically identical in most nonlocative cases in Biscayan dialects. However, they are not completely homophonous, due to stress/pitch accent. See Hualde et al. 1994:5068 for a description of accentuation in Lekeitio, and pages 8795 in that work for inected forms including accent marks in this variety.
14 As
38
its scope seems to be the whole DP.15 We assume that this inection is the realization of the head of DP:16 (25) Nominal inection DP NP D Deniteness Number Case
This D head may also contain a DP-nal (noninectional) determiner, as in (22b). The distribution of deniteness and number in Basque is somewhat different from more familiar Indo-European languages. First, denite DPs include nominals that are not interpreted as denite, such as certain indenites and predicate nominals. Strong quantiers also generally trigger deniteness marking. For discussion, see references cited at the beginning of this Subsection, as well as Artiagoitia 1997, 2002, Etxeberria 2008, and Zabala 2003. A second notable feature of nominal inection in Basque is that number distinctions (singular vs. plural)17 are only made in denite forms, and they are neutralized in indenites, as shown in Tables 1.31.4.18 In this book, we gloss nominal inection as follows: denite forms are glossed indicating case and number (23a), and indenites by simply indicating case (23b).19 1.4.3 The syntax of auxiliaries: T, C, and agreement In a Basque nite afrmative sentence, the main verb appears in a nonnite form (a participle) and is immediately followed by a nite auxiliary.20 This is illustrated in the following sentences, repeated from (7): (26) Word order in Basque a. Lau aste-an ego-n n -as geixorik. four week-IN be-PRF CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1. SG sick
headed by demonstratives are an exception. Unlike other dialects, demonstratives are DP-initial in many Biscayan varieties, and carry nominal inection matching the features also visible on the last word in the DP (Hualde et al. 1994:97102). 16 It is clear from this paradigm that inectional endings can be split into two positions: one encoding deniteness and number followed by a case morpheme. The rst position is null in indenite nonlocative cases and in denite singular locative cases, and the second position is null in the denite singular (and possibly also plural) absolutive case. We abstract away from this decomposition in this book. 17 There is also a distinction between proximate and nonproximate plurals, not included here. See references cited at the beginning of this Subsection. 18 In many dialects (including the ones studied here) indenites do trigger singular or plural agreement and cliticdoubling in the nite verb, depending on their semantic number. 19 Strong personal pronouns and names have somewhat special inectional forms, in that they do not seem to encode deniteness. We gloss these by simply indicating case. See Subsection 4.4 for clitic pronouns. 20 Although the participle and the auxiliary are indpendent words syntactically, their relative order can change in other sentence types (Etxepare and Ortiz de Urbina 2003, Etxepare 2003a:518529). Certain particles can intervene between the participle and the auxiliary (Ortiz de Urbina 2003b), which are otherwise adjacent in afrmative sentences.
15 DPs
39
Table 1.5: Analytic tenses in Basque Present Perfective Present perfect: ikus-i n-a-su you have seen me Aorist: ikus-i n-inddu-su-n you saw me Imperfective Present habitual: ikus-ten n-a-su you see me Past habitual: ikus-ten n-inddu-su-n you used to see me Future Future: ikus-iko n-a-su you will see me Conditional: ikus-iko n-inddu-su-n you would see me
Past
b.
c.
Ive been sick for four weeks. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:367) Su-k ni-0 / ikus-i n -a -su. you(Sg)-ERG me-ABS see-PRF CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1 SG -CL . E .2. SG You(Sg) have seen me. (Ondarru) Liburu-a emo-n d -o -tz -t (>dotzat) lagun-ari. book-ABS . SG give-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG friend-DAT. SG I have given the book to my friend. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:125)
Finite auxiliaries are the main topic of this book, and this Subsection and the next offer some introductory remarks on their syntax. Most Basque verbs do not have nite forms, and must therefore appear in analytical participleauxiliary complexes in nite sentences, as illustrated in all the examples so far. For instance, the main verb ikus-i see-PRF in (26b) has the perfective aspect afx allomorph -i, which combined with the present tense auxiliary results in a present perfect meaning. The auxiliary can also be past tense, which in this particular aspect/tense conguration results in an aorist tense meaning: (27) Su-k ni-0 / ikus-i n -indu -su -n. (>niddusun) you(Sg)-ERG me-ABS see-PRF CL . A .1. SG -PST.1. SG -CL . E .2. SG -CPST You(Sg) saw me. (Ondarru)
In complementary distribution with the perfective sufx, the main verb can also be marked for imperfective aspect or for future. This results in six different indicative analytical tenses, illustrated for the Ondarru verb ikusi in Table 1.5. The Basque nite auxiliary contains tense/agreement, clitics, and other morphemes. These morphemes surface in the following order:21 (28) Order of morphemes in Basque auxiliaries absolutive clitic tense/agreement dative clitic ergative clitic complementizer agreement complementizer
The rst position is sometimes occupied by morphemes other than an absolutive clitic, including the L-morpheme glossed L in (26c). The template in (28) abstracts away from the position of the plural clitic exponent -e. Both phenomena are discussed at length in Chapters 2 and 5. Complementizer agreement is unique to the Biscayan dialect.
21
40
Figure 1.4: Basic syntax of Basque sentences

CP TP AspP vP Subject VP V v Asp T C
Object
The auxiliaries in (26) illustrate most of these morphemes. As can be seen there, clitics are glossed as CL, followed by their case and -features. The tense/agreement morpheme is glossed as PRS / PST (depending on tense), followed by the -features of the argument it agrees with. As illustrated below, complementizer agreement is glossed with the -features it crossreferences, and the complementizer position in terms of the different sentential properties it encodes (Section 6 in Chapter 2). The descriptive template in (28) incorporates one of our major claims about Basque verbal syntax made in this book: (29) Morphemes cross-referencing arguments in a Basque nite verb are either pronominal clitics or agreement.
Traditionally, these morphemes are treated uniformly as agreement morphemes (e.g. Hualde 2003b), often making a distinction between person and number agreement morphology (e.g. Laka 1993a). We argue that the clitic-agreement distinction is crucial in understanding all cases of (apparent) multiple exponence in nite verbs. For instance, the auxiliaries in (26a)(26b) and (27) crossreference the rst singular absolutive argument in the rst two positions. In our analysis, this is not a true case of multiple exponence: the rst position is lled by a clitic doubling the absolutive argument, and the second position is a T morpheme agreeing with that same argument. This and other cases of apparent multiple exponence are explained in this book in terms of the basic division between pronominal cliticization and agreement. The verbal forms in nite sentences are derived as follows (Laka 1990:1825). As illustrated with the transitive structure in Figure 1.4, all sentences have the functional projections AspP, TP and CP above vP. The participle is formed by movement of V to v, and of the V-v complex to Asp. This accounts for the appearance of an aspectual sufx on the main verb. The auxiliary as schematized in (28) is the result of several operations of agreement, Cliticization and Head Movement targetting T and discussed below. The second position in the auxiliary template in (28) is the root of the auxiliary, and we claim that it is the realization of T (see below for brief discussion of alternatives). This head is specied as present or past tense, which we encode in terms of the feature [Past]. In addition, it is a
41
Probe that triggers Agree with absolutive and dative arguments in the sentence.22 This agreement operation is discussed at length in Section 4 in Chapter 2. It should be clear from what we have said above that in Basque the mechanisms of case assignment and agreement are independent. Ergative and dative cases are inherent, and absolutive reects the absence of any case assignment. Agreement occurs between T and the absolutive and dative arguments, if present. In the absence of such arguments, T is assigned default agreement features, as discussed in Section 5 in Chapter 2. Thus, T is not involved in any case assignment process, but it does agree with absolutive and dative arguments. Two other operations are involved in generating auxiliaries. In the syntax, T moves to C. In the postsyntactic component, an agreement morpheme that copies -features from T is adjoined to C, resulting in complementizer agreement. Abstracting away from cliticization (Subsection 4.4), the resulting structure for all auxiliaries is the following: (30) The structure of nite auxiliaries C TAgr C Agr C Examples of overt C and complementizer agreement are shown in the following examples: (31) Overt complementizer Pentza-ten d -o -t bidxar etorr-iko d -a -la. think-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG tomorrow come-FUT L -PRS .3. SG -CDECL I think he will come tomorrow. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:183) Complementizer agreement Da gobernu-uk emo-ten d -o -tz -e -0 / -s and government-ERG . SG give-IMP L -PRS .3 -CL . D .3. PL -CL . D . PL -CL . E .3. SG -3. PL berroei millo-0. / forty million-ABS And the government gives them forty million. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:218)
(32)
C is always overt in embedded (nite) clauses, and also in some matrix clauses. The realization of complementizer agreement as an overt exponent depends on both person and number agreement features. Both morphemes are discussed in detail in Chapter 2 (Section 6 and Subsection 4.3). A crucial claim made in this book is that the root of the auxiliary is the realization of a T head specied for tense and agreement. Previous work has often analyzed it as the realization of a lower head such as v.23 The main reason why we have not adopted this view is that it cannot account for some basic facts about the syntax-morphology mapping in Basque verbs. As discussed above, the participle and the auxiliary form separate words in the syntax. Although they often appear
most cases, only absolutive agreement surfaces in T, but there are cases were dative agreement is also visible. See Subsection 4.2 in Chapter 2 and Subsection 4.4 in Chapter 3. 23 The claim is made explicitly in Arregi 1998 and Fernndez 1999. The same conclusion is entailed by related work where it is claimed that the rst position in (28) is the realization of agreement features in v or V c (i.a. Fernndez and Albizu 2000, Rezac 2003, Rez 2008).
22 In
42
adjacent, they clearly surface in separate parts of the structure in some contexts, such as matrix negative sentences (Laka 1990:2551, Etxepare 2003a:518522): (33) Ior-0 / es d -a eskola-0 / ju-n. anybody-ABS not L -PRS .3. SG school-ALL . SG go-PRF Nobody has gone to school.
(Ondarru)
Under the assumption that the root of the tensed auxiliary were v, this head would have to undergo head movement to T: (34) Putative illegal movement in (33) if v is head of auxiliary: [ TP [ AspP [ vP [ VP . . . V ] tv ] Asp ] v-T ]
However, this movement would skip the intervening Asp head, since the latter is part of the participle, not the auxiliary. This is a violation of the Head Movement Constraint (Travis 1984), a well-established condition on this type of movement. Under the analysis defended here, this issue does not arise; movement of v to T does not occur, and the auxiliary root is the realization of T. Furthermore, the realization of this morpheme clearly depends on features typically associated with a T node that is an Agree Probe. A cursory look at the second position in all the forms in the Appendix reveals that its form depends both on tense features and on person and number features of the absolutive argument (and to a more limited extent, on features of other morphemes in the auxiliary). Our analysis of agreement in Chapter 2 is complemented by a detailed account of the realization of T in Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio in Chapter 3. The fact that our analysis accounts for the complex patterns of syncretism and allomorphy of this position in the auxiliary provides further arguments for the view that it is the realization of T. 1.4.4 The syntax of auxiliaries and pronominal clitics In addition to T, there are morphemes in the auxiliary cross-referencing absolutive, ergative and dative arguments in the clause (see (28)). Although these are commonly referred to as agreement morphemes (i.a. Laka 1993a, Fernndez and Albizu 2000, Rezac 2003), we claim that they are in fact pronominal clitics. Clitics bearing these three cases are illustrated in the examples in (26), repeated here:24 (35) Pronominal clitics in Basque a. Lau aste-an ego-n n -as geixorik. four week-IN be-PRF CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1. SG sick Ive been sick for four weeks. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:367) b. Su-k ni-0 / ikus-i n -a -su. you(Sg)-ERG me-ABS see-PRF CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1 SG -CL . E .2. SG You(Sg) have seen me. (Ondarru)
This justies in part the adoption of the clitic analysis, and has been taken as evidence for the claim that these morphemes are historically derived from pronouns. See Gmez Lpez and Sainz 1995:249256, Trask 1997:218221, and references cited there. Note however that these works take our pronominal clitics to be agreement morphemes in Modern Basque.
24 The form of these morphemes resembles that of (nonclitic) pronouns.
Section 1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology c.
43
Liburu-a emo-n d -o -tz -t (>dotzat) lagun-ari. book-ABS . SG give-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D.3. SG -CL . E .1. SG friend-DAT. SG I have given the book to my friend. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:125)
Auxiliary paradigms are traditionally classied according to the number and type of pronominal clitics they contain.25 We use the same criterion to refer to different auxiliary types in this book, but for ease of exposition, we use a different terminology. Auxiliaries with an ergative clitic are referred to as transitive (35b)(35c), and those without, as intransitive (35a). Among the former, we also distinguish between ditransitives (35c), which have a dative clitic, and monotransitives (35b), which do not. We also occasionally refer to intransitive auxiliaries with a dative clitic as applicative intransitives (e.g. (18)) to distinguish them from plain intransitives. Although this is very convenient terminology, the reader should be aware that it does not necessarily correlate with syntactic properties of auxiliaries. For instance, a sentence with Absolutive Promotion (Subsection 3.2 in Chapter 2) has the basic syntax of an applicative intransitive sentence, but its internal (theme) argument is assigned ergative case and triggers ergative cliticization, resulting morphologically, according to our terminology, in a ditransitive auxiliary. Another mismatch between this terminology and syntax is provided by unergative sentences (Subsection 5 in Chapter 2): they are intransitive, but the subject is assigned ergative case. Thus, the auxiliary in these sentences counts as morphologically transitive. Finally, DOM (Subsection 4.1) illustrates the case of ditransitive auxiliaries containing a dative clitic that doubles a dative-marked direct object in a monotransitive clause. Different types of evidence that these morphemes cross-referencing arguments are pronominal clitics is offered in Chapters 23. With respect to their syntax, the hypothesis affords an elegant account of Person-Case Constraint (PCC) effects in this language, and of its dialect-particular repair Absolutive Promotion (Section 3 in Chapter 2). The claim is also a crucial part of our account of (apparent) multiple exponence in Basque auxiliaries (Chapter 3). The issue of multiple exponence is apparent in many forms in the auxiliary paradigm. This is a concern for any analysis couched in a DM model, where each feature bundle can only correspond to a single exponent. For instance, the rst singular absolutive argument in (35a)(35b) is crossreferenced in two separate positions in the auxiliary (the rst two). Although the -features expressed by both exponents crossreference the same argument, they are hosted by separate morphemes in the auxiliary: a pronominal clitic and T. Thus, the link between the features realized in each position and the argument they crossreference is different. Under this view, Basque auxiliaries do not illustrate multiple exponence; all apparent cases are accounted for in terms of features hosted in separate morphemes. In Chapter 3, we compare this account of multiple exponence with previous ones that attempt to account for it in terms of a distinction between person and number agreement morphemes. Doubling by a clitic is obligatory for absolutive, dative and ergative arguments in nite clauses: omission of any clitic in (35) results in ungrammaticality. We analyze cliticization in Chapter 2 by adopting a version of the big-DP Hypothesis (Torrego 1992, Uriagereka 1995): the clitic and argument are generated as a constituent in argument position, from where the clitic moves to its
The names for the different types of auxiliary are based on the wh-word nor who inected for the different cases: NOR (absolutive), NOR-NORI (absolutive-dative), NOR-NORK (absolutive-ergative), NOR-NORI-NORK (absolutive-dative-ergative).
25
44
host in a functional projection higher up in the clause. The analysis provides a natural account of the doubling facts. It also derives the absence of third person absolutive clitics in Basque, a central hypothesis in this book that plays an important role in our account of the PCC and Absolutive Promotion (Chapter 2), ssion of the plural clitic exponent -e (Chapter 3), and Enclitic Metathesis (Chapter 5). In sentences with third person absolutive arguments, such as (26c), the position typically lled by absolutive clitics is lled by other morphemes, such as the L-morpheme and metathesized clitics (Chapter 5). The clitic hosts in Basque auxiliaries are T and C. The latter hosts ergative clitics. Absolutive and dative clitics compete for cliticization to T, a hypothesis that provides the basis of our analysis of PCC effects and Absolutive Promotion. Our analysis of the syntax of pronominal clitics is illustrated in the following structure for the auxiliary in (35b): (36) The structure of nite auxiliaries with pronominal clitics C T ClAbs n T a ClErg su C C Agr C
This structure illustrates our analyisis of pronominal clitics hosted in T and C, as well as the realization of tense and agreement features in T (C and complementizer agreement have a null realization in this example). Pronominal clitics are subject to a number of postsyntactic operations. These include [+Participant]Dissimilation (Chapter 4) and Enclitic Metathesis (Chapter 5), both of which play an important role in the evidence presented in Chapter 6 for our modular model of the grammar. 1.4.5 Other aspects of verbal syntax Basque verbal morphosyntax is a complex topic, and in this book we only deal with a central part of it: nite indicative auxiliaries. Our analysis makes predictions about other aspects of Basque verbs, but for a few different reasons we cannot offer detailed accounts for all of them. This Subsection briey discusses some of these issues. 1.4.5.1 Finite main verbs As shown above, most Basque verbs lack nite forms and must appear in conjunction with a tensed auxiliary in nite sentences. There are, however, a very reduced number of verbs that can also appear in synthetic nite tenses. In this case, the morphemes that are otherwise part of a nite auxiliary are attached to the root of main verb: (37) Finite main verbs a. Ar-ek diro asko-0 / n-e-ku-an. that.ERG . PL money much-ABS CL . E .1. SG - PST.3. SG-have-CPST I had a lot of money. b. Kantzeu-te g-a-u-s. tire-NF CL . A .1. PL - PRS .1. PL-be -1. PL
(Ondarru)
Section 1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology Were tired.
45 (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:406)
Note that these verbs can also appear in all analytical tenses discussed above, which results in a somewhat complex mapping between morphology and semantics in the tense/aspect system of Basque. See Laka 1990:1825 and Arregi 2000 for further discussion. Although nite forms of main verbs are clearly related to the syntax and morphology of nite auxiliaries, we have not included them in our analysis. We assume that they involve movement of the V-v complex (possibly including Asp) to T, but we do not have anything more elaborated to offer in term of their derivation. There are several reasons for this gap in our analysis. First, only a very reduced number of lexical verbs have nite forms. For instance, Hualde et al. 1994:121123, 132134 only lists ten for Lekeitio, and only ve of them have past tense forms.26 Furthermore, the paradigms are greatly leveled; for instance, none of the transitive verbs have forms with (nonthird person) absolutive clitics.27 It is thus hard to draw solid conclusions from nite forms of lexical verbs, which justies our excluding them from our analysis. It should nevetheless be noted that, as illustrated in (37), their morphology is very similar to auxiliaries, and are subject to similar postsyntactic operations discussed in this book, such as Enclitic Metathesis in (37a) (Chapter 5). Thus, extending our account to these forms does not seem to pose any insurmountable problems. 1.4.5.2 Nonindicative auxiliaries Our analysis also excludes all nonindicative forms of auxiliaries. Nonindicative moods in Basque include the conditional, the potential, the subjunctive, and the imperative.28 These are not included in our account for different reasons. In some cases, these nonindicative forms are very similar to indicative forms, with the addition of some additional exponent. For instance, conditional forms are similar to past indicative forms, and involve the addition of the exponent -ke/teke/tike, or the realization of C as null (as opposed to -n in indicatives) in the three dialects discussed in this book. These forms seem to have an additional functional head realized as one of the exponents given above, as well as allomorphy in C, and do not seem to involve any complication in the analysis beyond that. In other cases, the paradigms are greatly levelled, as is the case in the potential and subjunctive moods.29 This is especially true in the monotransitive paradigm, which in nonindicative moods lacks forms with (rst and second person) absolutive
verbs with nite forms in Lekeitio are: dxuan go, etorri come, eruan carry, ekarri bring, esan say, ixan be (similar to Spanish ser), egon be (similar to Spanish estar), ibilli walk, euki have, and dxakin know. Only the last ve have past tense forms. The list in Ondarru is very similar, with two differences: ekarri bring has no nite forms, and all of them except erun carry and esan say have past tense forms. The list in Zamudio is the same as in Lekeitio, with the addition of two more verbs: erabili use, and eritzi consider, and past forms are available for egon be, ibili walk, and euki have (Gaminde 2000:377382). 27 The only exception we are aware of is the nite verb in the following idiom (cf. Spanish Me tienes hasta los cojones): (i) arte n -a -ka -su. Potru-k testicle-ABS . PL up.to CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1. SG -have -CL . E .2. SG Im fed up with you.
28 Conditional forms are used 26 The
(Ondarru)
in counterfactual conditionals, indicative conditionals being based on indicative forms of auxiliaries. Potential nite forms are used to express existential modality, and the use of subjunctive forms is similar to Romance (with a narrower distribution). See Oyharabal 2003b:268284. 29 In fact, subjunctive forms are barely used in Lekeitio and Ondarru (Hualde et al. 1994:120), where the use of nonnite clauses in subjunctive contexts is very common.
46
clitics. The imperative paradigm is somewhat richer (though limited to second person subjects), and seems to involve special forms of the root morpheme (T), as well as allomorphy in C (null or -n, depending on specic clitic combinations and dialect). See Hualde et al. 1994:118121, 127131 and Gaminde 2000:371376 for all attested nonindicative auxiliary forms in Lekeitio and Zamudio, respectively. 1.4.5.3 Colloquial/Formal Distinctions and Allocutive Morphology Many Basque dialects have a relatively complex second person system that distinguishes not only between singular and plural, but also between formal and colloquial, and in the latter case, between masculine and feminine (this is the only place where grammatical gender is encoded in Basque grammar). For instance, the second singular ergative clitic in Batua Basque is -zu in formal treatment (which is gender-neutral), while it is -k/a (masculine) and -n(a) (feminine) in colloquial treatment. These distinctions are neutralized in the plural, which in the case of ergative clitics the single form used is -zu-e. In many Biscayan dialects, including Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio, these distinctions in singular forms have been neutralized in favor of the historically formal form, which in the ergative is su (the etymological equivalent of Batua -zu). A few historically colloquial auxiliary forms are provided in Hualde et al. 1994:117130 and Gaminde 2000:371376 for the dialects of Lekeitio and Zamudio, respectively. These forms are never used by younger speakers, and rarely by older speakers. Ondarru Basque lacks these forms altogether. A related phenomenon that has all but disappeared from the three dialects studied here and is therefore not included in our account is the so-called allocutive conjugation of nite verbs (Oyharabal 1993, Alberdi 1995, Hualde 2003b:242246). In Basque dialects that have a formalcolloquial distinction in the second singular, auxiliaries have an additional second person clitic when addressing a speaker with whom they use colloquial forms of the second person. This clitic is called allocutive because it does not crossreference any argument in the sentence, and does not alter the (truth-conditional) semantics of the sentence in any way. Its only function is to signal familiarity with the addressee.30 Due to the neutralization of the formal/colloquial distinction, allocutive forms are no longer used in the three varieties studied here.31 Due to the extremely rare use of the colloquial/formal distinction and allocutive clitics in Lekeitio, Ondarru and Zamudio, these phenomena play a relatively minor role in this book. We exclude a detailed analysis of these forms from our account of the morphology of auxiliaries, but we include some relevant discussion at several points, including Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 2, 4.1 in Chapter 3, 5.3 in Chapter 4, and 5 and 6.3 in Chapter 5. 1.4.5.4 Binding-theoretic considerations All descriptions of Basque nite verbs contain a paradigm gap: all clitic combinations of rst with rst person and of second with second person are ruled out. For ease of reference, we refer to these gaps as 1/1 and 2/2 combinations. This can be clearly seen in the Tables in the Appendix, where all cells corresponding to such combinations are empty, regardless of case and number. The following are some illustrative sentences:
some eastern dialects of Basque, allocutive clitics are also used with singular formal addressees (Oyharabal 1993). 31 See Subsection 4.1 in Chapter 3 for further remarks on allocutive clitics. Allocutive forms gathered from older speakers of Lekeitio and Zamudio Basque can be found in Hualde et al. 1994:134135 and Gaminde 2000:382385, respectively.
30 In
Section 1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology (38) 1/1 and 2/2 combinations a. *Ni-k neu-0 matxe n / -a -t. I-ERG me-ABS love CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1. SG -CL . E .1. SG I love me/myself. b. *Matxe s -aitu -su. (>satxusu) love CL . A .2. SG -PRS .2. SG -CL . E .2. SG You(Sg) love you(Sg)/yourself.
47
(Ondarru)
(Ondarru)
We follow Oyharabals (1993:102) in assuming that this paradigm gap is due at least in part to Binding Theory: the object clitic (or its doubled pronoun/pro) is subject to Condition B, which is violated in argument combinations of rst with rst and second with second. The basic idea behind this binding theoretic explanation of the paradigm gap is that reexive and reciprocal relations (henceforth BT-anaphoric relations) in Basque do not give rise to argument combinations of rst with rst or second with second.32 Two main strategies exist in Basque to express BT-anaphoric relations: (i) the use of a third person BT-anaphor (regardless of the person of the antecedent), and (ii) detransitivization. Unlike other languages with pronominal clitics, Basque lacks BT-anaphoric clitics and agreement. BT-anaphoric expressions in argument position are third person, and trigger third person agreement (39) or cliticization (40): (39) Third person reexives: genitive pronoun + buru head Neu-re buru-a dxo-0 d -o / -t. my-GEN head-ABS . SG hit-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG Ive hit myself. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:179) Third person reciprocals: bata beste one another Sue-k bat-a besti-ai liburo bat-0 emo-0 / / you(Pl)-ERG one-ABS . SG other-DAT. SG book a-ABS give-PRF d -o -tz -su -e. (>tzasue) L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .2 -CL . E . PL You have given one another a book.
(40)
(Ondarru)
The third person agreement and cliticization in these examples is not specic to BT-anaphoric relations. In fact, (39) has an additional literal meaning that is not reexive: Ive hit my head. Under that reading, the agreement exponent -o- remains the same. Thus, this BT-anaphoric strategy cannot be a source for argument combinations of rst with rst or second with second, and thus explains in part the restriction against 1/1 and 2/2 combinations. Detransitivization is a possible strategy to express BT-anaphoric relations when the relation is between an ergative subject and an absolutive object. The following are relevant examples with participant antecedents: (41) Reexive detransitivization Ondo sain-ddu n -as. well take.care-PRF CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1. SG
Artiagoitia 2003c for reexives and reciprocals in Basque, and Hualde et al. 1994:176182 for Lekeitio.
32 See
48 Ive taken good care of myself. (42)
Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:180)
Reciprocal detransitivization Sue-k matxe s -as -e. you(Pl)-ABS love CL . A .2 -PRS .2. PL -CL . A . PL You love each other.
(Ondarru)
In this strategy, the subject has absolutive case, not ergative, and the object is omitted. As a result, only one argument triggers cliticization (and agreement) in the auxiliary. As with the other strategy, this cannot be a source of argument combinations of rst with rst or second with second, and thus provides another ingredient in the explanation of the paradigm gap under discussion. Although Basque has other BT-anaphoric strategies, they have similar properties in that they do not give rise to argument combinations of rst with rst or second with second. Thus, it is natural to assume that 1/1 and 2/2 combinations in nite verbs give rise to Condition B violations: the object clitic in (38) (or the associated pronoun/pro in argument position) is bound in its local domain by the subject. Evidence that this is the correct explanation comes from nonnite clauses: (43) 1/1 combinations in nonnite clauses a. *[ Ni-k neu-0 matxe ixa-ti ] nai d -au / -0. / [ I-ERG me-ABS love be-NF ] want L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG He wants me to love me. (Ondarru) b. [ Ni-k neu-re buru-0 / matxe ixa-ti ] nai d -au -0. / [ I-ERG my-GEN head-ABS . SG love be-NF ] want L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG He wants me to love myself. (Ondarru)
As expected, a reexive relation in a nonnite clause requires the use of a reexive pronoun; a nonreexive pronoun in object position is ungrammatical. Thus, the imposibility of auxiliaries with 1/1 and 2/2 combinations in nite clauses can be reduced to the Binding Theory. However, there are certain types of sentences in which argument combinations of rst with rst and second with second are not expected to give rise to Condition B violations. As discussed immediately below, Basque requires reexivization strategies even in these contexts, which makes an explanation of the paradigm gaps in terms of Condition B plausible. The rst case arises in contexts where the relation between the two arguments is necessarily one of coreference, not binding (i.a. Reinhart 1983, Heim 1998). In this context, nonreexive pronouns are possible in English: (44) Context: You know what Mary, Sue and John have in common? Mary admires John, Sue admires him, and John admires him too. (Heim 1998:216)
Coreference with a pronoun is possible in this context, in apparent violation of Condition B. However, the same is not true in Basque: a reexive strategy (i.e. a reexive pronoun or detransitivization) is required even for coreference in this type of context: (45) Context: Nobody loves Jon: Mikel doesnt love John, Miren doesnt love him, and a. Jon-ek be es d -au -0 / ber-an buru-0 / matxe. Jon-ERG even not L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG his-GEN . SG head-ABS . SG love
Section 1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology Even Jon doesnt love himself. b. Jon-0 be es d -a / matxe. Jon-ABS even not L -PRS .3. SG love Even Jon doesnt love himself. c. *Jon-ek be es d -au -0 / (ber-a) matxe. Jon-ERG even not L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG (him-ABS . SG ) love Even Jon doesnt love him.
49 (Ondarru)
(Ondarru)
(Ondarru)
The same pattern obtains in argument combinations of rst with rst and second with second: (46) Context: Nobody loves me: Mikel doesnt love me, Miren doesnt love me, and a. Neu-k be es d -o -t ni-re buru-0 / matxe. I-ERG even not L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG my-GEN . SG head-ABS . SG love Even I dont love himself. (Ondarru) b. Neu-0 be es n / -a matxe. I-ABS even not CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1. SG love Even I dont love myself. (Ondarru) c. *Neu-k be es n -a -t (ni-0) / matxe. I-ERG even not CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1. SG -CL . E .1. SG (me-ABS . SG ) love Even I dont love me. (Ondarru)
Whatever the explanation of the difference between English and Basque, it is clear that the latter requires a reexive strategy even in coreference contexts. Thus, 1/1 and 2/2 combinations in auxiliaries do not arise in these contexts either. Another type of sentence where we might expect a BT-theoretic explanation to not be available has to do with combinations of arguments with different number. Object nonreexive pronouns are possible in English and other languages in at least some of these combinations (i.a. Lasnik 1981, Rooryck 2006): (47) I saved us from certain death. (Rooryck 2006:1562)
However, nonreexive pronouns (including pro) are ruled out in Basque even in these contexts. Surprisingly, a reexive pronoun is needed in this type of sentence (Artiagoitia 2003c:623624):33 (48) / ikus-i d -o -t (>rot) ispillu-n. Ni-k geu-re buru-0 I-ERG our-GEN head-ABS . SG see-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG mirror-IN . SG Ive seen us in the mirror. (Ondarru) -t (>gatxut) ispillu-n. b. *Ni-k (geu-0) ikus-i g -aitu / mirror-IN . SG I-ERG (us-ABS ) see-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG Ive seen us in the mirror. (Ondarru) a.
As in previous cases, the use of a reexivization strategy precludes the use of an auxiliary with 1/1 and 2/2 combinations. Therefore, it seems that the ban on 1/1 and 2/2 combinations can be explained in binding theoretic terms: all such combinations are ruled out as violations of Condition B. Nevertheless, as
33 Compare
English *I saw ourselves in the mirror. Detransitivization is not a possible strategy here.
50
pointed out by Xabier Artiagoitia (personal communication), there might be an additional restriction on these combinations in auxiliaries. Although nonnite sentences that violate Condition B are ungrammatical (e.g. (43a)), equivalent nite sentences with the offending clitic combinations seem worse (e.g (38)). This suggests that the latter violate a restriction that is specic to clitic combinations, perhaps related to a similar restriction found in Spanish clitic combinations (Perlmutter 1971:4145). For the purposes of this book, we assume that they are simply ruled out by Condition B, and leave for future research the question of whether an additional restriction is needed. 1.5 Overview of the Book In the chapters that follow, we elaborate the model of syntactic operations and Spellout operations that yield the intricate pattern of morphotactic restrictions in Basque nite verbs. The primary phenomena that interact are syntactic cliticization, pre-linearization impoverishment and obliteration operations, word-internal linearization, post-linearization morpheme metathesis operations, and allomorphy during Vocabulary Insertion. These phenomena are exemplied in successive chapters, after which their ordered interaction is demonstrated through a series of often opaque feeding and bleeding relations. There are a few things that this book will not cover. In particular, it is not an exhaustive description of any of the dialects we cover, in particular of phenomena outside of their auxiliary system. It is also not an exhaustive treatment of verbal morphology in Basque, and is silent on nonnite verbs, since these do not show any of the phenomena we are interested in. Our primary focus is on what the interaction of Basque morphotactics reveal about the architecture of the inectional word formation components of natural language. Chapter 2 is devoted to the syntactic operations that generate the Basque auxiliary word and other nite verbs. We present a clause structure for Basque nite CPs, and a detailed description of the mechanisms of head-movement and cliticization that bring together these distinct syntactic terminals into a single morphological word (M-word). We provide a discussion of case assignment in Basque intransitive, transitive, and ditransitive clauses, and a syntax for clitics in terms of a big-DP structure, in which they originate within the base structure of the syntactic argument to which they correspond. The mechanism of Agree is exemplied for the feature-valuation relationship between T(ense) and the absolutive argument, with a demonstration of the effects of agreement intervention by the dative argument. The existence of an apparent Person-Case Constraint" in Basque is derived as a consequence of the way that cliticization works and in terms of minimality-based competition for clitic host positions. Finally, we discuss a syntactic mechanism that enables nding a second host for absolutive clitics, Absolutive Promotion, and demonstrate that it is syntactic, based on its relation to argument structure. Chapter 3 provides an in-depth look at the morphophonology of the auxiliaries, focusing on ssion, vocabulary entries for the auxiliary root, and phonological rules affecting the underlying form of auxiliaries. The chapter presents novel revisions to the mechanisms of ssion and Vocabulary Insertion proposed within earlier work on Distributed Morphology. It also contains argumentation to the effect that Basque has no third person absolutive clitics, a fact that has many consequences outside of the non-realization of this particular expected element. The discussion also includes a discussion of the realization of plural morphology within the Basque auxiliary, with an emphasis on decomposing apparent cases of multiple exponence into independent morphemes, each of which carries its own particularities of distribution. The core of the chapter is devoted to develop-
Section 1.5 Overview of the Book
51
ing explicit analyses of all aspects of Vocabulary Insertion affecting the form of the root in Lekeito, Ondarru, and Zamudio, with an eye towards highlighting key points of convergence and divergence in terms of their exponents according to agreement features, tense, and argument structure. Chapter 4 focuses on the interaction of morphological markedness constraints with the featuredeletion and terminal-deletion operations of impoverishment and obliteration. We examine both context-free markedness (the marked value of a particular binary feature) and context-sensitive markedness (the marked combination of certain feature-values in the presence of others). A large part of the chapter is devoted to an exemplication of Participant Dissimilation, a process of morphological dissimilation based on multiple instances of the feature [+participant] in the same Mword. We demonstrate that Participant Dissimilation is a general constraint, found across many Biscayan dialects, that bans the co-occurrence of 1st plural clitics and 2nd person clitics within the same nite verb, but that each dialect may impose additional subcondition and enacts separate repairs in terms of deletion operations. We exemplify the distinction between impoverishment and obliteration through an examination of their effects on the allomorph selection between auxiliary roots have and be. This chapter also presents an analysis of the phenomenon of Plural Clitic Impoverishment, whereby the number distinction on absolutive and dative clitics is neutralized in the context of a particular type of ergative clitic. The deletion phenomena in this chapter exemplify some of the procedures recurrently found during the participation of the Feature Markedness module in the Spellout of the Basque auxiliary. Chapter 5 emphasizes the role of linearity-based morphotactics as determining well-formedness of the nite verb. We motivate a word-internal second-position effect, reminiscent of the secondposition and Wackernagel effect found in clausal syntax, and argue that the auxiliary root in Basque must havea terminal node to its left once linearization has been imposed. Ordinarily, linearization of the absolutive clitic to the left of the auxiliary root will fulll this requirement; however, when this fails to occur, other operations must furnish an element in this position. Enclitic metathesis is a process by which an ordinarily enclitic morpheme is metathetically transposed to the left of the auxiliary root in order to satisfy this Noninitiality requirement. We formalize enclitic metathesis as a type of Local Dislocation operation and discuss its role in linear-reordering. If Enclitic Metathesis cannot apply, an epenthetic process of L-support provides an expletive clitic" that serves to satisfy the Noninitiality requirement on T0 . The chapter also contains a discussion of dialectal variation in the morpheme chosen for enclitic metathesis. Chapter 6 investigates the interaction of the processes documented in Chapters 2,3, and 4, by examining cases in which the application of one of these processes either creates or destroys the environment for one of the other processes to occur. We outline a predicted intrinsic order in which these operations must apply, based on the hypothesis that assignment of post-syntactic operations to the pre-linearization or post-linearization block is based on the inherent nature of their structural description. Through a variety of opaque and seeming Duke-of-York interactions, we demonstrate that these predictions are upheld, and provide evidence that word-formation in Basque auxiliaries must be derivational and multistratal. These interactions also support the conclusion that the grammatical modules responsible for word-formation are encapsulated" from each other, each with their own distinct well-formedness principles and often myopic in terms of the well-formedness requirements of other modules. The chapter concludes with a broader set of conclusions about structural parallels between the sequenced structure of Spellout and the way that computation works in phonology. We conclude Chapter 7 with a discussion of directions for further research. These include a
52
general recap of some of the crucial post-syntactic operations found within the Basque auxiliary through the lens of a revisitation of the apparent multiple exponence of plural morphology. This apparent multiple exponence is instead handled throughout the analysis via a division of labor between distinct mechanisms such as clitic ssion, complementizer agreement, and allomorphy of the auxiliary root itself, three phenomena which inhabit demonstrably distinct points along the Spellout path. The chapter also includes a broader summarizing discussion of the nature of Crossmodular Structural Parallelism as it is found throughout the overall organization and specic nature of post-syntactic operations, and the importance of a methodological cycle between broad dialect comparison and in-depth complete empirical coverage of individual dialects for the discovery of new generalizations and for particular issues that we identify as ripe for future investigation.
Chapter 2 The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement
2.1 Introduction The -features of ergative, absolutive, and dative arguments interact in various ways in the clitic and agreement system of the Basque nite auxiliary. In this Chapter, we provide an analysis of the syntax of agreement and cliticization in Basque, and introduce certain postsyntactic operations that are intimately related to these operations. Basque nite auxiliaries have the following template:1 (1) Order of morphemes in Basque auxiliaries Abs clitic Tense/Agreement Dat clitic Erg clitic Comp agreement Comp
In our analysis, this template has no theoretical status, but is the result of the interaction of various syntactic and postsyntactic operations introduced in Chapter 1 and discussed further throughout the present Chapter. These operations, which include cliticization, agreement, and Head Movement, result in the following internal structure of axuiliaries: (2) The structure of Basque auxiliaries C T (ClAbs/Dat ) TAgr (ClErg ) C C Agr C The main purpose of this Chapter is to develop an analysis of verbal and clitic syntax in Basque that derives this structure. Crucial to the discussion in this Chapter is the claim that, contrary to the dominant viewpoint in the literature, certain morphemes attached to the auxiliary that are often identied as agreement are actually pronominal clitics that double the ergative, absolutive, and dative arguments (positions 1, 3 and 4, respectively, in (1)). This claim has been made before with respect to dative and ergative
is a well-dened class of exceptions to this template. In certain environments, the rst position is occupied by a special epenthetic morpheme or by a clitic that is not syntactically absolutive. The morphological operations responsible for these cases are discussed in Subsections 2.1 and 4.2 and in Chapter 5. In addition, in PCC contexts in Ondarru, the ergative clitic position is lled by a clitic that is generated in absolutive position, as discussed in Subsection 3.2. Finally, a plural exponent -e is split off from certain clitics, as discussed in Chapters 3 and 5.
1 There
53
54
Chapter 2. The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement
markers in the Basque auxiliary (Rezac 2006, Preminger 2009), and continuing our previous work (Arregi and Nevins 2008) we propose that it is in fact true for the absolutive marker preceding tense/agreement as well. Importantly, however, we argue that the auxiliary does manifest agreement: the auxiliary root is the realization of T, a Probe that triggers Agree with the absolutive and dative arguments. The resulting model illustrates a dissociation in the effects of argument encoding in the nite verb, with distinct mechanisms for competition in clitic placement and agreement realization. In addition, the distinction between pronominal cliticization and agreement allows us to explain the phenomenon of multiple exponence in Basque nite verbs in a principled way: cliticization and agreement may target the same argument, resulting in more than one morpheme crossreferencing a single argument in the nite auxiliary. We make several claims with respect to agreement and cliticization in Basque that can be summarized as follows. We argue that agreement proceeds in two steps, following a decoupling of Agree into a syntactic Agree-Link and a postsyntactic Agree-Copy. This particular division of labor in the explanation of agreement in T explains the particular distribution of agreement in Basque: although T agrees with both absolutive and dative arguments, dative agreement only surfaces in very specic environments. Also crucial in our analysis is the claim that the last agreement marker in the auxiliary (position 5 in (1)) is adjoined to C and parasitic on agreement in T. With respect to cliticization, our discussion concentrates on two aspects of Basque auxiliaries. First, adopting ideas found in previous literature on the topic, we claim that Basque has no third person absolutive clitics, which has important consequences for the morphosyntax and morphophonology of nite auxiliaries that are examined throughout this book. Second, our analysis of cliticization in Basque provides an elegant account of Person-Case Constraint (PCC) effects in this language and their repairs. Among these repairs, we concentrate on Absolutive Promotion in the variety of Ondarru, whose relevance for the general theory of morphology defended in this book is further highlighted in Chapter 6. Several operations are involved in generating the auxiliary structure in (2), and the present Chapter is organized around these operations. We begin in Sections 23 with the syntax of pronominal clitics, including accounts of the absence of third person absolutive clitics in Basque, PersonCase Constraint effects, and Absolutive Promotion. We propose that pronominal clitics are generated forming a constituent with arguments, and undergo cliticization to their hosts, T and C. Both hosts also display agreement with certain arguments, which is the topic of Section 4. We start that Section with agreement between T and absolutive and dative arguments. We argue that agreement is the result of a two-step process: Multiple Agree, with Multiple Agree-Link in the syntax and Multiple Agree-Copy in the postsyntactic component. Interaction of the latter operation with other postsyntactic processes explains why dative agreement only surfaces in certain contexts. We also discuss complementizer agreement, which, drawing parallels with analyses of similar phenomena in Germanic languages, we argue is the result of a separate postsyntactic operation that copies features from T to an agreement morpheme adjoined to C. Section 5 discusses the issue of default agreement, arguing that in the absence of an appropriate argument to agree with, the -features of T default to third person singular. This differs from the behavior of cliticization, where lack of a clitic does not result in default clitic realization. In Section 6 we discuss the complementizer system in Basque, concentrating on the class of exponents that realize the last position in (1). We propose that they form part of the auxiliary as a result of Head Movement of T to C after agreement and cliticization. The Chapter ends with a general summary and conclusions in Section 7.
Section 2.2 Clitic placement 2.2 Clitic placement
55
One of our central hypotheses is that some of the morphemes often referred to as agreement in Basque nite auxiliaries are in fact pronominal clitics. Specically, we propose that the following template for nite auxiliaries is descriptively adequate: (3) Order of morphemes in Basque auxiliaries Abs clitic Tense/Agreement Dat clitic Erg clitic Comp agreement Comp
With the exception of agreement in T and complementizer agreement, all other morphemes crossreferencing arguments in the clause are pronominal clitics. This immediately explains why these morphemes do not vary in their realization in different tenses, as pronominal clitics are crosslinguistically characterized by being tense-invariant. This aspect of the analysis is discussed in detail in Chapter 3. In this Section, we discuss the syntax of cliticization in Basque. Our analysis of pronominal cliticization in Basque has two components. In Subsection 2.1, we develop a particular version of the big-DP analysis in which clitics are generated in argument position together with their doubles. Our analysis derives the fact that Basque has no third person absolutive clitics, which in turn constitutes a crucial element in our explanation of several phenomena in the morphology of Basque nite auxiliaries. The second part of the analysis is discussed in Subsection 2.2, where we propose that clitics move to T and C in nite clauses. Clitic movement, together with agreement (Section 4) and T-to-C movement (Section 6), provides one of the necessary ingredients for the syntactic derivation of auxiliaries in Basque. 2.2.1 Clitic generation Basque pronominal clitics can have ergative, dative, or absolutive case. These clitics are generated forming a constituent with the doubled argument, and must be licensed by moving to certain functional heads that are only available in nite clauses. Consider, for instance, the following transtive sentences: (4) (Su-k) (neu-0) ikus-i n / -a -su. (you.SG - ERG) (me-ABS ) see-PRF CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1. SG -CL . E .2. SG You have seen me
(Ondarru)
(5)
Boltzillo-atan eroa-ten d -o -su diru-e. pocket-IN . PL carry-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .2. SG money-ABS . SG You(Sg) carry money in your pockets. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:63)
In (4), the auxiliary contains the rst singular absolutive proclitic n- and the second singular ergative enclitic -su, doubling the corresponding arguments. (5) provides a similar example of the ergative clitic -su. The latter also illustrates another claim made here: unlike other arguments, Basque lacks clitics doubling third person absolutive DPs. What we nd in this case in the position usually reserved for absolutive clitics is an L-morpheme (see discussion at the end of this Subsection). These sentences also illustrate the obligatoriness of cliticization in Basque nite clauses. Being a pro-drop language for ergative, absolutive and dative arguments (Subsection 4.1 in Chapter 1), Basque allows both arguments in this example to be null. However, the clitics must be present
56
on the nite auxiliary, irrespective of the presence or absence of an overt argument: the auxiliary form d-o-su, with an initial L-morpheme instead of an absolutive clitic, cannot replace n-o-su in (4), and neither can n-as, which has no ergative clitic. Similarly, omision of the ergative clitic in (5), resulting in d-a, is ungrammatical. In this Subsection, we provide an analysis of the particular distribution of pronominal clitics in Basque nite clauses. Obligatory clitic doubling is found in many languages. For instance, it is obligatory with strong object pronouns in Spanish (Jaeggli 1982:Chapter 1, Suer 1988) and subjects in some Northern Italian languages (Poletto 2000:140-143): (6) Juan *(la) vio a ella. Juan *(CL . ACC ) saw to her Juan saw her. Gnun a m capiss. nobody CL . SBJ me understands Nobody understands me.
(Spanish)
(7)
(Turin, Piedmontese, Poletto 2000:142)
The phenomenon is also illustrated by subjects in and Rhaeto-Romance (Haiman and Beninc 1992:179181), and the quantier all in several languages (Tsakali 2008). We account for cliticization and clitic doubling in Basque by adopting a form of the so-called big-DP analysis (Torrego 1992, Uriagereka 1995, Cecchetto 2000, Belletti 2005, van Craenenbroeck and van Kopp 2008).2 Clitics are generated in the specier position of certain functional layers that dominate argumental DPs: (8) The structure of big-DPs KP (DCl ) PartP (DCl ) Part Part K K
DPArg
The clitic is generated in the specier of the higher projection. From this position, the clitic agrees in case and -features with the argument DP, which can be covert (pro). The heads K and Part host certain case and person features in arguments:3 (9) a. b. Inherent case features are generated in the head K. The person feature [+Participant] is generated in the head Part.
Subsection 2.3 for discussion of alternative analyses of cliticization. some case and person features are generated in positions higher than D, this is not reected in the realization of these features in arguments. As shown in Subsection 4.2 in Chapter 1, all and case features are realized in D. The projections Part and K, where present, are fused into a single morpheme with D in the postsyntactic component.
3 Although
2 See
Section 2.2 Clitic placement
57
The particular distribution of person and case features proposed in (9) results in a system where different argument types have different internal structures. This has important consequences for the syntax of clitics, which we hypothesize are generated in the highest specier position made available by the functional projections KP and PartP. Consider rst participant (rst/second person) arguments in inherent case positions: (10) Participant arguments with inherent case KP DCl K
PartP DPArg Author Singular Part [+Participant]
K Peripheral +Motion
We assume that inherent case is selected. Specically, v selects for a KP with ergative case in its specier, and Appl selects for a KP with dative case in its specier (see Subsection 4.1 in Chapter 1 for our assumptions about case assignment in Basque).4 Given (9a), K hosts inherent case features: [Peripheral, +Motion] for ergative, and [+Peripheral, +Motion] for dative. The feature [+Participant] is in the head Part (9b), whose complement is the argument DP (DPArg ), which hosts all other -features.5 Furthermore, the clitic DCl is generated in the specier of the higher functional projection KP. Given (9), not all arguments are generated with both KP and PartP. Since absolutive case is not inherent, absolutive case-marked arguments are not generated in positions selected as KP, and therefore are merged without KP:
proposals are found in Gair and Wali 1989, Den Dikken 1995:Chapter 3 and Rez 2008. c proposal is similar to the claim in Dchaine and Wiltschko 2002 that -features of (some) pronouns are hosted in a dedicated functional head in DPs (see also Cardinaletti and Starke 1999). Our account is also similar to van Craenenbroeck and van Koppen 2008 in attempting to relate this functional layer in DPs to clitic-doubling. There are, however, important differences between these proposals and ours, in part due to the fact that the empirical domains analyzed in those works and this one do not overlap completely. For instance, van Craenenbroeck and van Koppen (2008) use their analysis to account for clitic doubling in Wambeek Dutch, which, unlike Basque, is restricted to strong subject pronouns.
4 Similar 5 This
58 (11)
Chapter 2. The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement Participant arguments with absolutive case PartP DCl DPArg Peripheral Motion Author Singular Part Part [+Participant]
In this case, the clitic is generated in PartP, since KP is not available. As discussed in Subsection 4.1 in Chapter 1, absolutive is a default case not assigned by any particular functional head. Absolutive arguments remain caseless in the syntax, and the unmarked case features under the argument DP shown in (11) are provided as defaults in the postsyntactic component. On the other hand, third person arguments with inherent case have KP, but not PartP: (12) Nonparticipant arguments with inherent case KP DCl K K Peripheral +Motion
DPArg Participant Author Singular
K hosts inherent case features, and all -features are in the argument DP. As in (10), the clitic is generated in the specier of KP. Finally, third person absolutive arguments have neither KP not PartP, since they do not have the relevant case or -features. As a consequence, all case and -features are hosted inside DP in third person absolutive arguments. Since clitics must be generated in the specier of KP or PartP, this predicts that they behave differently with respect to cliticization: (13) Basque has no third person absolutive clitics.6
The basic idea behind our proposal is that clitics must be generated in a high position in the structure of arguments, which is only available in arguments with certain feature specications. Third person absolutive arguments lack these features, and are therefore generated without a clitic. As shown in (3) above, the rst position in Basque auxiliaries is typicaly lled by an absolutive clitic. In cases where the absolutive argument is third person, this position is occupied by a special morpheme, as illustrated in intransitive (14) and transitive (15) (repeated from (5)):
6 Wiltschko
(2008) makes a claim similar to (13) for Salish.
Section 2.2 Clitic placement (14)
59
Gaur goixi-an aitta-0 / etorr-i d -a. today morning-IN . SG father-ABS . SG come-PRF L -PRS .3. SG My father came this morning. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:168) Boltzillo-atan eroa-ten d -o -su diru-e. pocket-IN . PL carry-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .2. SG money-ABS . SG You(Sg) carry money in your pockets. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:63)
(15)
We adopt a well-established assumption in the Basque literature that, despite appearances, this morpheme is not the realization of a third person absolutive clitic.7 In the examples above, it is spelled out as d, but as shown in Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 5, its realization is highly dependent on features of T. If it were a third person absolutive clitic, it would be unique in having this property in the Basque clitic paradigm. Instead, we propose that this is an epenthetic L-morpheme (L is for Left, or for Linearization-related) inserted in the postsyntactic component due to a constraint on the Linearization of T (see Section 4 in Chapter 5). Since the initial position in auxilaries in sentences with third person arguments does not contain an absolutive clitic, it follows that Basque has no third person absolutive clitics. The claims that d and its allomorphs are not absolutive markers, and consequently, that Basque lacks third person absolutive clitics, form an essential element in our account of several morphological phenomena in Basque, including the PCC (Subsection 3.1; see also Rezac 2008), the behavior of the plural clitic -e (Subsection 3.4 in Chapter 3) and Ergative Metathesis (Section 4 in Chapter 5; see also Laka 1993a, Albizu and Eguren 2000, Fernndez and Albizu 2000, Rezac 2003).
2.2.2 Clitic movement As shown in the previous Subsection, Basque pronominal clitics are generated forming a constituent with the doubled argument. They must furthermore be licensed by moving to certain functional heads that are only available in nite clauses: (16) Clitic hosts in Basque a. Finite T hosts absolutive and dative clitics. b. Finite C hosts ergative clitics.
We assume that both T and C are specied for niteness: [+Fin] in nite clauses, and [Fin] in nonnite ones. Only [+Fin] heads are clitic hosts in Basque. The complex T and C heads formed by cliticization are joined by T-to-C Head Movement to form the nite auxiliary verb. In this Subsection, we provide an account of both of these movement operations. As mentioned above, cliticization is obligatory in nite clauses. Note, however, that nonnite clauses do not have clitics: (17) [ su-k neu-0 ikus-ti ] nai d -au / -0. / [ you.SG - ERG me-ABS see-NF ] want L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG He wants you to see me.
claim was rst made in Oregi Aranburu 1974, and independently in Trask 1977.
(Ondarru)
7 The
60
We assume that clitics are generated whenever possible. Since they must be licensed by nite T or C, arguments are not generated with clitics in nonnite clauses.8 Although this analysis involves a certain amount of look-ahead, a similar issue arises in other pronominal clitic systems. In all varieties of Spanish, clitic-doubling of strong pronouns is obligatory for accusative and dative objects, but it is not possible for strong pronouns in any other position: (18) Juan lai vio a ellai . Juan CL . ACCi saw to heri Juan saw her. *li {loi /lei } fue a Madrid. hei { CL . ACCi / CL . DATi } went to Madrid He went to Madrid. *Juan {lai /lei } pensaba en ellai . Juan { CL . ACCi / CL . DATi } thought in heri Juan was thinking about her.
(Spanish)
(19)
(Spanish)
(20)
(Spanish)
However, the case properties of a DP are not determined at the point where it is merged. For instance, the direct object ella in (18) is merged as the complement of V, but its case is licensed at a later point in the derivation, when v is merged higher in the structure. Similarly, the subject l in (19) is merged in the specier of v, but its case is assigned later by T. In a big-DP analysis, where the clitic is generated forming a constituent with the doubled argument, the validity of generating an argument with a clitic is thus determined after the argument has been merged in its base position. Although Romance languages vary in the inventory of clitics at their disposal, all of them have restrictions of this type. For instance, Catalan has a number of oblique clitics not present in Spanish, but it does not have subject clitics. Thus, a certain degree of look-ahead is needed in more familiar pronominal clitic systems as well. Returning to the structure of nite clauses in Basque, the auxiliary in monotransitive (4), repeated below, is derived by moving the absolutive clitic to T and the ergative to C, as shown in Figure 2.1. (21) (Su-k) (neu-0) ikus-i n / -a -su (you.SG - ERG) (me-ABS ) see-PRF CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1. SG -CL . E .2. SG You have seen me
(Ondarru)
We assume that cliticization is a particular kind of head movement with certain properties. As illustrated in Figure 2.1, it typically skips intervening heads: v, Asp (omitted in Figure 2.1) and T (see Subsection 2.3 for further discussion of this point). Furthermore, each clitic can adjoin only to a particular host: absolutive and dative clitics can only adjoin to T, and ergative clitics can only adjoin to C.9 An important consequence of this is that there are no intervention effects in
In a similar way, clitic-doubling of strong subject pronouns is not possible in nonnite clauses in Wambeek Dutch. van Craenenbroeck and van Koppen (2008) propose that clitics in this language are specied for a niteness feature that must be checked by Rizzis (1997) Fin head. Cliticization is movement of the clitic to this head in order to satisfy this feature-checking requirement. 9 Note that T attracts clitics across a vP. In terms of phase theory, either vP is a weak phase in Basque (and perhaps in ergative languages more generally), or it is a strong phase and consistent with the denition of the Phase Impenetra8
61
Figure 2.1: The syntax of clitics CP
TP
C ClErg C
vP
T ClAbs T
KP VP tClErg PartP DP Part K PartP tClAbs DP Part V v
clitic movement: the absolutive clitic in Figure 2.1 skips the c-commanding ergative clitic on its way to T (since the specier of vP is not a potential landing site), and the ergative clitic skips the absolutive clitic in T on its way to C (since T is not a potential landing site for ergative clitics). Finally, the complex T head undergoes Head Movement to adjoin to C: (22) Transitive cliticization C T ClAbs T C ClErg C
The result is a single morphological word headed by C. Consider next the derivation of an unaccusative sentence, which is similar to a transitive one, the main difference being that there is no ergative clitic adjoined to C:10 (23) Bilbo-a ju-n s -as. Su-0 / you.SG - ABS Bilbao-ALL go-PRF CL .2. SG -PRS .2. SG You have gone to Bilbao.
(Ondarru)
bility Condition in Chomsky (2001) in which elements in a strong phase remain accessible until the next phase head up, which T is not. 10 See Section 5 for unergative sentences.
62 (24) Intransitive cliticization C T ClAbs T C
A further case is exemplied by indirectly transtive sentences, where the theme argument has dative instead of absolutive case. The Basque counterpart of look has this property (see Etxepare 2003b:411414 for other verbs that follow this pattern): (25) Jon-ek Miren-ei bea-tu d -o -tz -0. / (>tza) Jon-ERG Miren-DAT look-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG Jon has looked at Miren. Cliticization in indirectly transitive clauses C T ClDat C T ClErg C
(Ondarru)
(26)
The syntax of this type of sentence is very similar to a transitive one (see Figure 2.1), except for the fact that V assigns lexical dative case to its complement.11 This argument is doubled by a dative clitic that moves to T. Thus, the output of T-to-C movement is (26).12 Since structures generated by the syntactic component are not linearized (see Chapter 1), the trees in (22), (24) and (26) do not encode precedence relations. These are added by Linearization at a later point in the postsyntactic component, as discussed in detail in Chapter 5. At this point in the discussion, the following Linearization rules are sufcient (see Laka 1993a:4145 for similar ideas): (27) Linearization in Basque words a. In a binary branching node x with daughters y and z, where y is the head of x and z is a dative clitic, y precedes z. b. In a binary branching node x with daughters y and z, where y is the head of x, z precedes y.
For each binary branching structure in a Basque word, either (27a) or (27b) applies, that is, we assume that these Linearization rules are ordered disjunctively. Since (27a) applies in the case where one of the daughters is a dative clitic, it is more specic than the general rule in (27b), and therefore applies rst if its structural description is met. (27b) applies in all other cases.13
See Woolford 2006 for the distinction between inherent and lexical case. We implement lexical dative case in the complement of these verbs as selection of KP, in a manner similar to inherent dative case (Subsection 2.1). 12 Note that the auxiliary contain an additional L-morpheme preceding T, realized as d. See discussion at the end of Subsection 2.1. 13 The dative-related exception in (27a) to the more general Linearization rule in (27b) is a stipulation at this point, which we hope can be derived from more primitive or independent phenomena.
11
63
In the case where T hosts an absolutive clitic, only (27b) can apply. It results in right-headed structures. In both (22) and (24), the absolutive clitic is linearized to the left of terminal T, and in (22) the ergative clitic to the left of terminal C. The daughters of the root C node are linearized by (27b) as well, with T preceding C. The only outputs for (22) and (24) that are consistent with these requirements are the following: (28) (29) Linearization of clitics on transitive auxiliary ClAbs T ClErg C Linearization of clitics on intransitive auxiliary ClAbs T C
As desired, the result is that the absolutive clitic surfaces as a proclitic to T (the root of the auxiliary), and the ergative (if present) as an enclitic following T.14 On the other hand, dative clitics trigger application of the more specic (27a), blocking (27b). In the case of (26), (27a) linearizes the dative clitic to the right of T, and (27b) linearizes the rest of the structure in the same way as the cases above: (30) Linearization of clitics on indirectly transitive auxiliary T ClDat ClErg C
This derives the correct morpheme order, with both the dative and ergative clitics surfacing to the right of T (in that order).15 Dative clitics are also present in sentences with an Appl head that selects a dative specier. They give rise to PCC effects, and their derivation is discussed in detail in Subsection 3.1. The syntax of cliticization in sentences with third person absolutive arguments is slightly different, since as shown in Subsection 2.1, these arguments do not have any of the relevant structure to generate PartP or KP, and are therefore not generated with a doubling clitic. This is the case of intransitive (14) and transitive (15), repeated here: (31) Gaur goixi-an aitta-0 / etorr-i d -a. today morning-IN . SG father-ABS . SG come-PRF L -PRS .3. SG My father came this morning. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:168) -su diru-e. Boltzillo-atan eroa-ten d -o pocket-IN . PL carry-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .2. SG money-ABS . SG You(Sg) carry money in your pockets. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:63)
(32)
The auxiliaries in these sentences do not have a clitic adjoined to T. Their structures after T-to-C movement are the following: (33)
14 Note
Result of Head Movement without absolutive clitic
that we use proclitic and enclitic as purely post-linearization terms: the absolutive clitic precedes the root (T), so it qualies as a proclitic, and the ergative follows it, so it is an enclitic, despite the fact that it is adjoined to the left of its C host. 15 On the auxiliary-initial morpheme glossed as L in (25), see Subsection 2.1.
64 C T C T C C ClErg C
The Linearization rules in (27) apply in the normal way, and the ergative clitic, if present, surfaces to the right of T: (34) Linearized structure without absolutive clitic T ( ClErg ) C
As in indirectly transitive sentences, (25), both auxiliary contain an additional L-morpheme preceding T (Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 5). 2.2.3 Alternative analyses of cliticization In this book, we assume a particular version of the big-DP analysis of pronominal cliticization. In this Subsection, we briey review alternative analyses of the phenomenon, and provide a rationale for our adopting a big-DP approach.16 Pronominal cliticization is a complex phenomenon that has puzzled syntacticians and morphologists alike. It seems to have conicting properties that defy explanation in terms of standard theoretical tools. The following is a short sketch of these properties (see Anagnostopoulou 2006 for a more thorough review). First, the impossibility of clitic-doubling in some languages (e.g. Italian) suggests a movement analysis where clitics are generated in argument position, thus explaining the complementary distribution of arguments and clitics. On the other hand, the fact that doubling is possible in some languages (e.g. Greek) might be seen as evidence that clitics are generated in their surface position (or in any case, not in argument position). Second, especially relevant for movement-based analyses is the fact that clitic movement (i.e. the relation between the surface clitic position and the argument position) seems to have properties of both head movement and phrasal movement. The surface position of clitics has clear properties of heads: it cannot be occupied by phrasal material (i.e. it is restricted to weak pronouns), and is prosodically dependent on word-like units (typically, verbs). If this is the landing position for clitic movement, it is expected of head movement constructions, but not of phrasal movement. On the other hand, as illustrated in Basque in the previous Subsection, the movement skips intervening head positions, which is expected only of phrasal movement. The big-DP hypothesis (Torrego 1992, Uriagereka 1995) arose out of the need to explain some of these conicting properties. Another approach that attempts to account for them originates in Sportiche 1996, where clitics are functional heads in the structure of the clause that attact arguments to their specier positions (henceforth, the functional head approach).17 In both approaches,
brief review concentrates on what can be considered morphosyntactic properties of pronominal clitics. Clitic doubling has several semantic properties related to specicity and animacy that interact in different ways accross languages (see Anagnostopoulou 2006 for a review of relevant literature). These effects are absent in Basque, where clitic-doubling is obligatory for all types of absolutive, ergative, and dative arguments in nite clauses (with the exception of third person absolutive). We thus abstract away from these semantic effects here. 17 There are also mixed approaches that involve a big-DP analysis for some clitics and an inectional head approach to others. See Anagnostopoulou 2006:Section 4.
16 This
65
the distribution of clitic doubling can be explained in terms of conditions on a local syntactic relation established between the clitic and the argument (before movement in the big-DP analysis, after movement in the inectional head analysis). In the inectional head account, clitics are generated as heads in the functional layer of the sentence, which accounts for their head movement-like properties (which, as noted above, are limited to properties of the surface position of clitics). The doubled argument (covertly) moves to the specier of the clitic head, thereby accounting for the phrasal movement properties of cliticization. In the big-DP approach, the clitic undergoes movement to an functional head in the clause (e.g. T), which accounts for the head-like properties of this movement. Its phrasal properties can be accounted for if, as suggested in Uriagereka 1995, the argument containing the clitic undergoes movement to some position high enough in the structure of the clause from which the clitic can locally move as a head to its surface host (see Cecchetto 2000 for a specic implementation). In this book, we adopt a big-DP analysis with the specic intention of explaining the morphosyntactic properties of Basque pronominal clitics and the auxiliaries containing them. The assumption that clitics undergo movement to functional heads (their hosts) is crucial in our account of the PCC and its repairs in Basque, discussed in Section 3 below. In particular, the proposal that the same functional head hosts more than one clitic in the same sentence establishes a competition for movement to this head, resulting in PCC effects, and it also imposes conditions on possible PCC repairs. In the inectional head approach to cliticization, different clitics are generated in separate heads in the functional domain. In order to implement PCC effects as the result of competition for the same clitic host, the analysis would thus need to be supplemented with a furhter step moving the clitics from these inectional heads to their surface hosts. In addition, due to our concentration on the morphosyntactic properties of clitics, we have ignored a possible initial step involving phrasal movement, which, as noted above, has been used in the big-DP literature to account for the prhasal movement properties of cliticization. Given our particular version of the big-DP analysis, this rst step can be implemented as follows. Unlike other big-DP analyses, the clitic in our account is an X0 generated in the specier position of certain functional heads in arguments. Thus, it can undergo movement either as a head or as a phrase. The rst step for cliticization can then be phrasal movement of the clitic itself to the specier of some functional projection immediately below T (for dative or absolutive clitics) or C (for ergative clitics). From this position, the clitic can undergo local head movement to its host. A more detailed implementation of this idea would take us beyond the scope of the present book, and leave it for future research. Although the brief comments above provide a rationale for adopting our particular analysis of cliticization in Basque, we would like to stress that, as suggested above, alternative analyses are also possible. Our account of the morphosyntactic properties of Basque clitics commit us to certain analytic choices among the ones available, but this still leaves room for other particular implementations. 2.2.4 Summary: The syntax of cliticization The analysis presented in this Section provides a complete account of the syntax and linearization of Basque pronominal clitics. The analysis of these morphemes in terms of pronominal cliticization affords an elegant account of PCC effects and Absolutive Promotion discussed in the next Section, and paves the way for our account of other morphological phenomena in Basque auxiliaries in the
66 rest of this book.
2.3 The Person-Case Constraint and Absolutive Promotion Our analysis of cliticization developed in the previous Section provides the necessary theoretical tools to account for the PCC effect in Basque. As in other languages, this effect results from restrictions on possible combinations of clitics in the auxiliary, as discussed in Subsection 3.1. The rest of the Section is dedicated to repair operations that circumvent these restrictions. Among these, Absolutive Promotion (available only in Ondarru among the three varieties studied here) is studied in detail in Subsection 3.2. Unlike other PCC repair operaionts in this language, the properties Absolutive Promotion have been studied in some detail in the literature. In addition, Absolutive Promotion gures prominently in our discussion in Chapter 6: its interactions with other operations on auxiliaries discussed in this book provide crucial evidence for the modular architecture of the grammar proposed here. Other PCC repair operations are discussed briey in Subsection 3.3. 2.3.1 The Person-Case Constraint in Basque The PCC is a condition on the combination of clitics and agreement morphemes that holds in many languages (Perlmutter 1971:2586, Kayne 1975:173176, Bonet 1991:Chapter 4, Anagnostopoulou 2003:Chapter 5, Bjar and Rezac 2003, Adger and Harbour 2007, Nevins 2007). In Basque, it is instantiated by banning rst and second person absolutive clitics in the presence of an indirect object dative clitic (de Zavala 1848:8, de Azkue 1925:571573, Lafon 1943:vol.1, 397399, Latte 1944:294, Laka 1993a:2728, Albizu 1997, Ormazabal and Romero 2007, Rezac 2008). This can be seen in the following examples: (35) Su-ri Jon-0 presenta-0 / / d -o -tzu -e. (>tzue) you.SG - DAT Jon-ABS introduce-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .2. SG -CL . E .3. PL They introduced Jon to you. (Ondarru) *Su-ri neu-0 presenta-0 / / n -a -tzu -e. you-SG - DAT me-ABS introduce-PRF CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1. SG -CL . D .2. SG -CL . E .3. PL They introduced me to you. (Ondarru) *Ber-ai seu-ek he-DAT. SG you-ABS . PL presenta-0 / s -aitu -tz -e -e. (>satxutze) introduce-PRF CL . A .2 -PRS .2. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . A . PL -CL . E .3. PL They introduced you(Pl) to him. (Ondarru)
(36)
(37)
All three auxiliaries contain a dative clitic. However, (35), with a third person absolutive argument is grammatical, while (36)(37), with rst and second person absolutive arguments, are not. In Tables 2, 45 and 78 in the Appendix, this is reected in the fact they only contain forms for third person absolutive. The contrast above illustrates the PCC in ditransitive sentences. Psychpredicates with a dative experiencer such as ondo jausi and gusta (both translatable as like) give
Section 2.3 The Person-Case Constraint and Absolutive Promotion rise to PCC effects in intransitive sentences:18 (38) Ni-ri Jon-0 ondo jaus-ten g -a / -t. (>gasta) me-DAT Jon-ABS well fall-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .1. SG I like Jon.
67
(Ondarru)
(39)
*Ni-ri su-0 / ondo jaus-ten s -a -t. (>sasta) me-DAT you.SG - ABS well fall-IMP CL . A .2. SG -PRS .2. SG -CL . D .1. SG I like you. (Ondarru) *Eur-ai ni-0 / gusta-ten n -a -ko -e. they-DAT. PL me-ABS like-IMP CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1. SG -CL . D .3 -CL . D . PL They like me.
(40)
(Ondarru)
As in ditransitives, in the presence of a dative argument, the absolutive can be third person (38), but not second (39) or rst (40). This restriction on the combination of absolutive and dative clitics in Basque follows from the absence of third person absolutive clitics in this language (Subsection 2.1), combined with the condition in (41):
2000:372 contains some Zamudio intransitive forms that apparently violate the PCC. Specically, these are present tense intransitive forms with a dative clitic and a rst singular absolutive clitic (no such forms are given for Lekeitio in Hualde et al. 1994, and they are not attested in Ondarru either). However, the paradigm is greatly leveled, and is limited to the aforementioned forms (e.g. there are no past tense forms nor ones containing a rst plural absolutive clitic). Furthermore, as has been noted for many other Basque dialects, they are restricted to sentences that do not conform to a structure with a dative argument that is higher than the absolutive theme, as in ditransitive sentences (35) (see Figure 2.2) and unaccusative psych-verb sentences (38). See Subsection 4.1 in Chapter 1 for discussion and relevant references. Since the syntax of dative and absolutive arguments is crucial in our explanation of PCC effects in Basque, and it is not clear to us what the syntax of these apparent PCC-violating sentences should be, we leave this as a matter in need of further research. We thank Iaki Gaminde for clarifying the Zamudio data for us.
18 Gaminde
68
Figure 2.2: Clitics in a ditransitive sentence CP
TP
C ClErg C
vP
T ClDat T
KP VP tClErg DP ApplP KP tClDat DP (41) Condition on Clitic Hosts A clitic host in Basque (nite T or C) can only attract one clitic. V v
DPAbs
Appl
Consider rst the grammatical sentences containing third person absolutive arguments. The structure of ditransitive (35) is shown in Figure 2.2. C attracts the ergative clitic and T attracts the dative clitic. Since the absolutive argument is third person, it does not project the structure required for clitic-doubling. Therefore, T attracts only the dative clitic, and the Condition on Clitic Hosts (41) is met. The syntax of cliticization in this type of sentence is thus the same as in indirectly transitive sentences, where the absence of an absolutive clitic is due to the fact that there is no absolutive argument (see discussion surrounding (25)). The intransitive dative experiencer sentence in (38) has a similar derivation, the main difference being that there is no cliticization to C, due to the absence of an ergative argument. As in the cases discussed earlier in this Section, the structure in Figure 2.2 (or its equivalent without an ergative clitic in intransitive sentences) is the input to T-to-C movement. In the postsyntactic component, the Linearization rules then place the dative clitic to the right of T, as well as the ergative (if present): (42) Linearized structure in sentences with dative goal or experiencer T ClDat ( ClErg ) C
As in other cases discussed earlier, the L-morpheme in the rst position in the auxiliaries in these sentences is inserted in the postsyntactic component. The preceding analysis predicts PCC effects. Consider, for instance, (36) and (39), repeated here:
Section 2.3 The Person-Case Constraint and Absolutive Promotion
69
Figure 2.3: Ungrammatical derivation of a sentence with absolutive and dative clitics CP
TP
vP ClAbs ApplP v
*T T ClDat T
KP VP tClDat DP PartP tClAbs DP (43) *Su-ri neu-0 presenta-0 / / n -a -tzu -e. you.SG - DAT me-ABS introduce-PRF CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1. SG -CL . D .2. SG -CL . E .3. PL They introduced me to you. (Ondarru) *Ni-ri su-0 / ondo jaus-ten s -a -t. (>sasta) me-DAT you.SG - ABS well fall-IMP CL . A .2. SG -PRS .2. SG -CL . D .1. SG I like you. (Ondarru) V Appl
(44)
In both sentences, the absolutive argument projects a clitic, since it is not third person. As always, the dative argument projects a clitic as well. Given the Condition on Clitic Hosts (41), T can only host one of these two clitics. However, in these examples, both the dative and absolutive clitic are competing for adjunction to T, violating (41). The structure in Figure 2.3 illustrates this for intransitive (44). To summarize, the particular instantiation of the PCC in Basque follows from the Condition on Clitic Hosts in this language.19 It correctly predicts that the PCC effect arises only in sentences with absolutive arguments that project clitics. An argument projects a clitic if it has sufcient functional structure, which in turns depends on its and case features. Third person absolutive arguments lack the relevant features to project these functional layers, which prevents them from generating a clitic. As a result, they do not give rise to violations of the Condition on Clitic Hosts. Our analysis of PCC shares many features of previous syntax-based accounts of the phenomenon Anagnostopoulou 2003:Chapter 5, Bjar and Rezac 2003, Adger and Harbour 2007, Ormazabal and Rom 2007, Nevins 2007). The basic idea is that the effect is due to a head H attempting to establish a relation R with two separate arguments (absolutive/accusative and dative), but the relation is con19 See
Subsection 3.2 for illustration of this condition with respect to clitics that are hosted in C.
70
strained in a way that only one of the arguments can enter into R with H.20 In addition, different assumptions about and case features result in third person absolutive/accusative arguments not needing to establish relation R with H. In most previous accounts, H is v, and R is person or animacy agreement. In our account, H is T, and R is the movement yielding cliticization. Evidence for our particular implementation of PCC effects in Basque comes from several sources. First, as shown in Subsection 2.1, Basque third person absolutive arguments do not project clitics. On the other hand, they do trigger agreement with T (for both person and number; see Subsection 4.1 below). This provides evidence for the claim that R is cliticization, not agreement, and for our particular implementation of the special properties of third person absolutive arguments that exempt them from PCC effects. Second, as discussed in Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 1, the auxiliary containts T, but not v. Since clitics surface as part of the auxiliary, the head H that triggers cliticization must be T, not v. Finally, independent evidence for our Condition on Clitic Hosts comes from Absolutive Promotion, discussed in the next Subsection. As shown there, C is also subject to this condition, which restricts the availability of this operation to intransitive clauses. The fact that sentences with absolutive and dative clitics adjoined to T are ungrammatical does not necessarily mean that sentences like (43)(44) are doomed to ineffability. In fact, the combination of a nonthird person absolutive argument with a dative argument is grammatical in nonnite sentences: (45) [ Su-k Jon-ei neu-0 presenta-ti ] nai d -o / -t [ you.SG - ERG Jon-DAT me-ABS introduce-NF ] want L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. CL I want Jon to introduce me to you. (Ondarru) [ Ni-ri su-0 / ondo jaus-ti ] nai d -o -t [ me-DAT Jon-ABS well fall-NF ] want L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. CL I want to like you.
(46)
(Ondarru)
No clitics are generated in nonnite clauses, so the Condition on Clitic Hosts is not relevant (see discussion of (17) above). In nite clauses like (43)(44), the analysis predicts grammaticality if there is some syntactic repair strategy that circumvents a violation of the Condition on Clitic Hosts. Ondarru has such a repair available, which we discuss in the following Subsection. 2.3.2 Absolutive Promotion In Ondarru, a PCC-repair strategy that we term Absolutive Promotion is available in sentences with unaccusative psych-verbs. For instance, a grammatical counterpart of (44) is the following: (47) Ni-ri ondo jaus-te d -o (>stasu) su-0/ki / -t -sui . me-DAT Jon-ABS / ERGi well fall-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .1. SG -CL . E .2. SGi I like you. (Ondarru)
The phenomenon arises intransitive sentences with the potential to violate the PCC, namely those with a psych-predicate with a rst or second person internal argument and a dative experiencer. The following sentence provides an additional example:
must establish the relation R with the absolutive/accusative argument, but the higher dative argument defectively blocks the relation.
20 Alternatively, H
Section 2.3 The Person-Case Constraint and Absolutive Promotion (48)
71
Jon-ei gu-0/ki / es d -o -tz -gui (>dotzau) gusta-ten. Jon-DAT we-DAT / ERGi not L -PRS .3. SG -DAT.3. SG -CL . E .1. PL like-IMP Jon doesnt like us. (Ondarru)
The clitic doubling the dative argument surfaces in its expected enclitic position as -t in (47) and -tz in (48). However, the nonthird person clitic doubling the internal argument appears as an ergative enclitic (-su and -gu respectively), not as an absolutive proclitic (as is usually the case with internal arguments). In our analysis, this entails that this clitic is adjoined to C instead of T (hence the term promotion). Absolutive Promotion has two other features. First, the doubled argument optionally surfaces with ergative case instead of absolutive. Second, T surfaces with default third singular agreement, that is, it does not agree with the promoted clitic. This contrasts with nonPCC contexts, where the doubled argument can only be absolutive, and triggers agreement in T (e.g. (38)). In this Subsection, we concentrate on the effects that Absolutive Promotion has on cliticization and on the case of the internal argument. Its effects on agreement are discussed in Section 5. Absolutive Promotion seems to be present in several varieties of Basque, but, unlike other interesting phenomena in Basque nite verbs, it has largely gone unnoticed in both the descriptive and theoretical work on this language. It was rst described in Aramaio 2001 for Berriatua, a Biscayan town neighboring Ondarru, and independently for the latter town in Arregi 2004. We have veried that it is also present in other Biscayan varieties, including Gernika, Mendata, and Mundaka.21 Rezac 2008, who calls it absolutive displacement, shows it to be present in some Gipuzkoan varieties (Errenteria, Legazpi, Zarautz). Gaminde 2000 does not report on this phenomenon in Zamudio, and our own eldwork reveals it to be absent in this variety. The description of the Lekeitio auxiliary system in Hualde et al. 1994 does not include Absolutive Promotion, but we have not consulted speakers of this variety on the grammaticality of sentences like (47). There is currently no published work studying the distribution of the phenomenon in the different dialects of Basque.22 A further important property of Absolutive Promotion is that it only applies in PCC contexts. In sentences with a dative argument and a third person internal argument only the former projects a clitic, which moves to T, as shown in Subsection 2.2. In this case, Absolutive Promotion is not an option. For instance, (38), repeated below as (49) does not have a grammatical counterpart with with a promoted clitic doubling the internal argument (50). (49) Ni-ri Jon-0 ondo jaus-ten g -a / -t. (>gasta) me-DAT Jon-ABS well fall-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .1. SG I like Jon.
(Ondarru)
(50)
*Ni-ri Jon-0/ki / ondo jaus-te d -o -t -0i . / (>sta) me-DAT Jon-ABS / ERGi well fall-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .1. SG -CL . E .3. SGi I like Jon. (Ondarru)
We thus propose that Absolutive Promotion is a syntactic PCC-repair operation that applies only when needed. That is, it is a last resort operation in the sense of Chomsky 1991 and Shlonsky
would like to thank Olatz Mendiola for gathering the relevant data from these varieties, and for her own Gernika judgments. 22 We suspect that it is limited to younger speakers, an observation also made by Rezac (2008:80).
21 We
72
Figure 2.4: Absolutive Promotion CP
TP
C ClErg C
vP
T ClDat T
PartP tClErg DP KP tClDat DP ApplP v
VP tPartP V
Appl
1992, and is therefore is a device restricted to particular grammars that applies whenever a more general operation is blocked. In this particular case, movement of both dative and absolutive clitics is banned accross Basque dialects. In this context, some dialects enact a repair operation that is otherwise not available, namely Absolutive Promition. We implement it as follows:23 (51) Absolutive Promotion (Ondarru) As a last resort, the internal argument (including the clitic) moves to the specier of vP, where it is assigned ergative case.
Consider the derivation of (47) in this analysis. As shown in Figure 2.4, the second person internal argument PartP is generated as the complement of Appl, and the experiencer KP in its specier, as is usual with this type of psych-predicate. The experiencer is assigned inherent dative case by Appl, and the internal argument is not assigned case (recall that absolutive case is a default assigned postsyntactically). Since movement of the clitics doubling both arguments to T is not possible due to the Condition on Clitic Hosts (41), the last resort operation in (51) applies, moving the internal argument to the specier of vP. This results in ergative case assignment to both the argument and the doubling clitic (with the addition of a KP layer). This licenses movement of the clitic to C. The dative clitic, as usual, moves to T. This analysis of Absolutive Promotion in terms of an intermediate step in the specier of vP explains why dative promotion is not a possible PCC-repair. For instance, the following is not a possible alternative to (47):
2010 proposes a similar derivation for Basque sentences with unaccusative verbs that select ergative case-marked subjects.
23 Preminger
Section 2.3 The Person-Case Constraint and Absolutive Promotion (52) *Ni-ri/ki su-0 / ondo jaus-ten s -aitu -ti . me-DAT / ERGi Jon-ABS well fall-IMP CL . A .2. SG -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. SGi I like you.
73
(Ondarru)
Unlike (47), the promoted clitic -t in (52) is doubling the dative experiencer. This would entail movement of the dative KP to the specier of vP. However, since the experiencer KP is assigned inherent dative case in its base position, this movement would result in illicit reassignment of case. In the derivation of Absolutive Promotion, movement of the internal argument to the specier of vP is possible because it is not assigned case prior to this movement. Cliticization of the absolutive to C is thus forced by the Condition on Clitic Hosts (41), which allows only one clitic per host. This same condition prevents using Absolutive Promotion in ditransitive sentences that violate the PCC. For instance, (43) above cannot be repaired using this strategy, as the dative competes for T and the ergative for C:24 (53) *Su-ri neu-0/ki / presenta-0 / d -o -tzu -e -ti . (>tzuet) you.SG - DAT me-ABS / ERGi introduce-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .2. SG -CL . E .3. PL -CL . E .1. SGi They introduced me to you. (Ondarru)
Both T and C can only host one clitic, and the absolutive clitic cannot move to T, which hosts the dative, or C, which hosts the ergative. As predicted, Absolutive Promotion is only possible in intransitive sentences.25 A point of variation in the output of Absolutive Promotion is the fact that the doubled argument can surface with ergative or absolutive case, as illustrated in (47)(48). This variation does not seem to be based on geographical dialects; rather, it seems idiolectal. Some of our Biscayan informants prefer absolutive, while others prefer ergative. Rezac 2008:8586 reports similar idiolectal variation for Gipuzkoan varieties.26 We propose that this variation is a subcase of a more general phenomenon in Basque. External arguments can surface with absolutive case instead of the expected ergative: (54) / Jon-{ek// 0 0} liburu-0 / irakurr-i d -au -0. / (>rau) Jon-{ERG/ABS} book-ABS . SG read-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG Jon has read the book.
(Ondarru)
(55)
/ Ni-{k// 0 0} Jon-ei liburu-0 / emo-0 d -o / -tz -t. (>tzat) I-{ERG/ABS} Jon-DAT book-ABS . SG give-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG I have given the book to Jon. (Ondarru)
This is considered highly substandard, and speakers typically perceive it to be due to inuence from Spanish.27 However, it is quite common in casual speech. We propose that this is a case of syncretism, due to the following optional Impoverishment rule applying in the postsyntactic component:
alternative to (53) where the promoted clitic precedes the (underlyingly) ergative clitic is also ungrammatical, as expected. 25 (53) can also be ruled out by banning multiple ergative case assignment by v. 26 The preference is absolute for some speakers. 27 See Subsection 3.1 in Chapter 1 for the notion of substandard that we assume here.
24 An
74 (56)
Chapter 2. The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement Ergative Impoverishment (optional) a. Structural description: an argument A specied as [Peripheral, +Motion]. b. Structural change: A [Peripheral, Motion]
The rule applies to the ergative argument only, changing its case to absolutive. It does not affect the pronominal clitic that doubles the argument on the auxiliary, which surfaces in the expected ergative form and position. For instance, the clitic doubling the rst singular external argument in (34) is enclitic -t, not proclitic n-, as expected for ergative clitics (see Subsection 3.2 in Chapter 3). If it were a syntactic phenomenon, we would expect the clitic to surface as absolutive, due to agreement with the doubled argument. Additional evidence for the postsyntactic nature of (56) comes from word order. Ergative subjects precede objects in discourse-neutral sentences, and this is true in (33)(34) regardless of the surface case of the subject.28 In the case of Absolutive Promotion, the internal argument and its doubling clitic acquire ergative case in the syntax due to movement to the specier of vP. Ergative Impoverishment (56) applies optionally in the postsyntactic component, resulting in the surface variation in the case of the argument reported above.29 To summarize so far, Absolutive Promotion is a PCC-repair strategy that moves the clitic doubling the internal argument to C in order to avoid a violation of the Condition on Clitic Hosts. This repair is, however, limited in two important ways. First, it cannot apply in ditransitive sentences, for reasons given above. Second, among the three varieties examined in this book, it only applies in Ondarru. It is clearly not a general strategy used by all or most Basque dialects. In the next Subsection, we discuss strategies used in ditransitives, as well as those used instead of Absolutive Promotion in intransitives. 2.3.3 Other PCC repairs Unlike Absolutive Promotion, other PCC repairs have not been subject to detailed study in the desciptive or theoretical literature, and we limit our remarks to providing some basic description and sketching how each strategy ts into our analysis of Basque nite auxiliaries. A common PCC repair in ditransitive sentences, rst noted in de Zavala 1848:8, is to omit the dative clitic: (57) Ni-ri seu-0 / presenta-0 / s -aitu -e. (>saitxue) me-DAT you.SG - ABS introduce-PRF CL . A .2. SG -PRS .2. SG -CL . E .3. PL They introduced you to me. (Ondarru)
On the other hand, omitting the absolutive clitic also seems possible:
Chapter 4, Section 5.4 for further discussion of Ergative Impoverishment. a prepublication version of Rezac 2008, this author rejects this as a possible explanation of variation in the case form of the doubled argument. According to him, ergative/absolutive case syncretism in external arguments is restricted to the third person, i.e. absolutive is possible on the subject in (33), but not in (34) (the published version of the article simply states that case is stable for 1st/2nd person pronouns: EA [external argument; A&N] is ergative, S [intransitive subject; A&N] absolutive" (p. 86)). The judgments reported in (33)(34) are from our Ondarru informant, for whom Ergative Impoverishment (56) applies for all persons. Rezacs own account of the facts is based on the idea that in Absolutive Promotion the internal argument enters into Agree relations with both T and v. A detailed study of variation in Ergative Impoverishment and its correlation with the case of the internal argument in Absolutive Promotion is needed in order to decide between the two accounts.
29 In 28 See
Section 2.3 The Person-Case Constraint and Absolutive Promotion (58)
75
Su-ri neu-0 / presenta-0 / d -o -tzu -e. (>tzue) me-DAT you.SG - ABS introduce-PRF L -PRS .3. SG CL . D .2. SG -CL . E .3. PL They introduced me to you. (Ondarru)
In both cases, a violation of the Condition on Clitic Hosts is avoided by exceptionally not generating one of the two clitics. It is not clear to us what governs which clitic is generated. As shown above, it seems that, when one of the clitics is rst person and the other second, our Ondarru informant prefers to keep the second person clitic. However, this conclusion is tentative, since it is based on a very limited data set. With some ditransitive verbs, the goal argument can alternate between dative and another case that does not trigger cliticization, such as allative (de Azkue 1925:572, Ormazabal and Romero 2007:326): (59) Su-ri liburu-0 / bixal-du d -o -tzu -e. (>tzue) you.SG - DAT book-ABS . SG send-PRF L PRS .3. SG -CL . D .2. SG -CL . E .3. PL They have sent the book to you. (Ondarru) Su-ana liburu-0 / bixal-du d -au -e. (>rabe) you.SG - ALL book-ABS . SG send-PRF L PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. PL They have sent the book to you.
(60)
(Ondarru)
Under these circumstances, a nonthird person absolutive argument makes the alternative case on the goal argument obligatory: (61) *Su-ri neu-0 bixal-du n / -a -tzu -e. you.SG - DAT me-ABS send-PRF CL . A .1. SG PRS .1. SG -CL . D .2. SG -CL . E .3. PL They have sent me to you. Su-ana neu-0 bixal-du n / -au -e. (>nabe) you.SG - ALL me-ABS send-PRF CL .1. SG PRS .1. SG -CL . E .3. PL They have sent me to you.
(Ondarru)
(62)
(Ondarru)
Dative case on the goal argument would lead to a violation of the Condition on Clitic Hosts, thus forcing assignment of the alternative case. Unlike ditranstives, the literature does not contain much discussion of PCC-repair strategies with psych-predicates other than Absolutive Promotion. The only one we have found is from the Biscayan variety of Basauri, as described in Arretxe 1994 (cited in Rezac 2008:100101). In Basauri, the dative experiencer argument is doubled by a clitic, but the nonthird theme argument is not: (63) Ni-0 / ber-ari e y -a -ko (>txako) guste-tan. me-ABS him-DAT not L -PRS .1. SG -CL . D .3. SG like-IMP He doesnt like me. (Basauri, Arretxe 1994:143, note 26)
This strategy seems to be the same as the omission of the absolutive clitic in ditransitives (58). We do not have sufcient data (or access to native Basauri speakers) to know whether omission of the dative clitic is possible. This concludes our analysis of PCC effects and their repairs in Basque. Although the PCC in
76
this language has been described in great detail, it is somewhat surprising that its repairs have not. Most of the very little work in the literature concentrates on Absolutive Promotion, for which we provide a detailed analysis. Although other strategies seem consistent with our analysis of Basque auxiliaries, much more data needs to be gathered from different dialects to nd out if this is indeed the case. We return to the importance of Absolutive Promotion in Chapter 6. 2.4 Agreement The previous Sections provide a pronominal clitic analysis of certain morphemes in the auxiliary that in our view have been misanalyzed as agreement in previous literature. This Section discusses what we argue is a true instantiation of agreement, as modeled with the Agree operation (Chomsky 2000). In particular, the root of the auxiliary is in fact T, which triggers agreement with both dative and absolutive arguments. The present Section deals with the syntax of Agree, as well as certain postsyntactic operations related to it, and Section 4 in Chapter 3 provides our analysis of the realization of tense and agreement in T. Our analysis of T agreement in Basque can be summarized as follows. We propose in Subsection 4.1 that T is a Probe that establishes Agree-Link relations with both absolutive and dative Goals. Agreement by T in Basque is thus an instance of Multiple Agree (Hiraiwa 2001). Another important claim concerning agreement is that it proceeds in two steps: syntactic Agree-Link is supplemented by Agree-Copy, a postsyntactic operation that copies the -features of the Goal onto the Probe (Subsection 4.2). A language-particular condition on Agree-Copy explains why T typically surfaces with absolutive agreement only, and why dative agreement is realized overtly in certain specic environments. The Section concludes with discussion of an agreement morpheme that surfaces adjoined to C (Subsection 4.3). We argue that it is the result of a postsyntactic insertion of a morpheme whose features are copied from T. 2.4.1 Multiple Agree As mentioned above, we posit Multiple Agree with both the absolutive and dative arguments simultaneously. The details of the workings of this operation in specic sentences depends on the number and type of arguments present in the clause. We discuss four central cases below: a clause with (i) absolutive and ergative arguments, (ii) a single absolutive argument, (iii) absolutive and dative arguments, and (iv) absolutive, ergative, and dative arguments. Clauses with no absolutive argument result in default agreement, and are discussed in detail in Section 5. The discussion of our analysis of Agree below must be considered in light of the fact that (most) arguments in nite clauses trigger cliticization, as shown in Section 2. Specically, clitics are generated in the specier position of certain functional heads projected above arguments: (64) The structure of clitic-doubled arguments KP/PartP Clitic K /Part Argument K/Part
Section 2.4 Agreement
77
Figure 2.5: Agreement between T and an absolutive argument.

CP TP C
vP
TAbs-2Sg
KPErg
VP PartPAbs-2Sg V
Depending on the case and -features of the argument, only KP, only PartP, or both are projected (Subsection 2.1). Since the clitic is higher than the argument, T in fact agrees with the former. As shown in Subsection 2.2, T also attracts the clitics it agrees with. This occurs after the Agree operation is completed. The only exception to this is third person absolutive arguments, which do not project a clitic (Subsection 2.1). In this case, T agrees directly with the argument. In most cases, agreement with a clitic is undistinguishable from agreement with its associated argument, since they share -features. However, a postsyntactic operation that alters the case features of certain clitics (but not necessarily those of their associated arguments) has an effect on the realization of agreement in T, as discussed in Subsection 4.2 below. This provides evidence that agreement is with the clitic, not with the argument. Consider rst the derivation of a sentence with an absolutive argument and an ergative argument: (65) Ni-k seu-0 / ikus-i s -aitu -t. (>saitxut) I-ERG you-ABS . SG see-PRF CL . A .2. SG -PRS .2. SG -CL . E .1. SG I have seen you.
(Ondarru)
The relevant aspects of the derivation of this sentence are shown in Figure 2.5.30 T initiates Multiple Agree with all absolutive and/or dative arguments (or clitics) in its domain. Since only an absolutive element is available (i.e. the clitic), the result is second singular absolutive agreement features in T in (65).31 The syntax of agreement in this type of sentence is the same as in one with a single absolutive argument: (66) Lau aste-an ego-n n -as geixorik. four week-IN be-PRF CL . A .1. SG -PRS .1. SG sick Ive been sick for four weeks.
category of argument positions in this structure can be DP, PartP or KP, depending on factors discussed in Subsection 2.1. See Subsection 4.1 in Chapter 1 for our assumptions about clause structure and case assignment in Basque. The AspP projection is not relevant for the purposes of agreement and cliticization, and we omit it throughout this chapter. 31 On the fact that the ergative argument is ignored by the syntax of agreement, see below.
30 The
78
Figure 2.6: Agreement between T and absolutive and dative arguments

CP
TP
vP
TDat-2Sg/Abs-3Sg
KPErg VP ApplP KPDat-2Sg V v
DPAbs-3Sg
App
As in the previous example, T agrees with the absolutive clitic, resulting in rst singular absolutive agreement. Consider next a ditranstive sentence, with absolutive, dative, and ergative arguments (see Subsection 4.1 in Chapter 1 for justiciation of our analysis of dative goals): (67) Liburu-a emo-n d -o -tzu -t. book-ABS . SG give-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .2. SG -CL . E .1. SG I have given the book to you. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:125)
As depicted in Figure 2.6, T initiates Multiple Agree with both the absolutive argument and the dative clitic. The presence of an ergative argument does not interfere with agreement with the other arguments, as discussed below. Note that T only surfaces with absolutive agreement in this case. This is illustrated in (67), where the exponent -o of T only realizes features agreeing with the absolutive argument (third singular). This is due to a postsyntactic operation related to agreement that is discussed in Subsection 4.2. Positing an agreement operation with the dative argument that is masked postsyntactically might seem unnecessary. However, the -features of dative arguments do surface under specic circumstances in some dialects, which justies this part of the analysis. c The following is a relevant example from Lekeitio (Hualde et al. 1994, Fernndez 2001, Rez 2008): (68) erregala-0 g / -aitu -0. (>gaitxu) / Mokixe-k gu-ri tabaku-a Mokixe.ERG us.DAT tobacco-ABS . SG give-PRF CL . A .1. PL -PRS .1. PL -CL . E .3. SG Mokixe gave us tobacco. (Lekeitio, Fernndez 2001:153)
79
In this auxiliary, T surfaces with the -features of the rst plural dative argument, not the third singular absolutive argument (note also that the clitic g- doubling the dative argument is morphologically absolutive). This aspect of agreement in the Basque auxiliary is dealt with in detail in Subsection 4.2. The syntax of agreement in intransitive sentences with dative experiencers is very similar to ditransitives, and is illustrated with psych-predicates such as gusta like: (69) Ni-ri ardau-0 / gusta-ten g -a -t. (>gasta) me-DAT wine-ABS . SG like-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .1. SG I like wine.
(Ondarru)
As shown in Subsection 4.1 in Chapter 1, these sentences have the following basic structure (higher functional projections are omitted): (70) ApplP KPDat VP V Appl vP v
DPAbs
In a way similar to ditransitives (Figure 2.6), T agrees with both the dative clitic and the absolutive argument, and only absolutive agreement surfaces (third singular in (69)). Although ergative and dative are both inherent cases, they interact with agreement in different ways in Basque. Specically, we make the following claims: (71) Ergative case and agreement a. An ergative argument is not a possible Goal for Agree by T. b. An ergative argument does not block Agree between T and other arguments. Dative case and agreement A dative argument is a possible Goal for Agree by T.
(72)
For instance, in (67), T agrees with the dative and absolutive arguments, but not with the ergative argument, despite the fact that the latter is closer to T than the former.32 This Basque-internal variation in the interaction of agreement with inherently case-marked arguments reects well-known cross-linguistic variation. It seems that we can establish a threeway typology of inherent cases according to their interaction with agreement: (73) Inherent case and agreement possibilities a. Inherent case is not a possible Goal for Agree, and does not block Agree with other arguments.
Note that this does not entail that the ergative does not have an effect on the realization of T. In fact, as discussed in detail in Section 4 in Chapter 3, the presence of an ergative clitic in the auxiliary has important consequences for Vocabulary Insertion in this node.
32
80 b. c.
Chapter 2. The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement Inherent case is not a possible Goal for Agree, and blocks Agree with other arguments. Inherent case is a possible Goal for Agree.
Ergative case in Basque instantiates (73a). It is also illustrated by both ergative and dative cases in Hindi, where T agrees with arguments marked as nominative, even in the presence of intervening ergative or dative arguments:33 (74) Raam-ne rotii kh aayii . Ram.M - ERG bread.F. NOM eat.PRF. F. SG Ram ate bread. Tuaar-ko kh uii huii Tushar.M - DAT hapiness.F happen.PRF. F. SG Tushar became happy.
(Hindi, Mahajan 1990:78)
(75)
(Hindi, Mohanan 1994:141)
Dative case in Icelandic displays the behavior in (73b): it does not trigger agreement but does block agreement between T and a nominative argument: (76) a virist einhverjum manni hestarnir vera seinir. EXPL seems.SG some man.DAT the.horses.NOM be slow It seems to some man that the horses are slow. (Icelandic, Holmberg and Hrarsdttir 2003:998)
Finally, dative case in Basque illustrates (73c), since, as discussed above, it triggers agreement with T. Dative subjects in Faroese have the same property, as well as ergative subjects in Nepali:34 (77) Ngvum kvinnum dma mannflk vi eitt sindur av Bki. many.DAT women.DAT like.3. PL men.ACC with a bit of belly Many women fancy slightly fat men. (Faroese, Jnsson 2009:146) mai-le bhaat khaay-en. I-ERG rice ate-1. SG I ate rice.
(78)
(Nepali, Verma 1976:272)
Summarizing, for each inherent case in each language, parametric variation regulates whether it triggers agreement or not, and in the latter case, whether it blocks agreement with other arguments or not. In the case of Basque, dative triggers agreement, and ergative neither triggers nor blocks agreement. To conclude, T agrees with the absolutive argument, and if present, with the dative argument as well. Ergative arguments do not trigger agreement, and do not affect the syntax of agreement with T in any way. In cases of Multiple Agree with absolutive and dative, T typically surfaces with absolutive agreement only, a fact that is discussed in the next Subsection.
sources for Hindi examples use different orthographic conventions. Examples have been adapted to a single uniform orthographic system. 34 Agreement with dative subjects is optional in Faroese, and seems to be a recent innovation. It only occurs with third person dative subjects (Jnsson 2009). Agreement with dative arguments is also exemplied by dative-marked direct objects in Gujarati (Mistry 1976) and dative subjects of innitives in Russian (Moore and Perlmutter 2000).
33 Our
Section 2.4 Agreement 2.4.2 Agree-Copy
81
T agrees with both absolutive and dative arguments, if they are present in the clause. However, in cases of Multiple Agree, only one of the two feature sets actually surfaces in T. In most cases, this is the absolutive feature set. For instance, in (69), repeated here as (79), T agrees with both the absolutive and dative arguments, but this is only reected overtly as agreement with the third person singular absolutive argument: (79) Ni-ri ardau-0 / gusta-ten g -a -t. (>gasta) me-DAT wine-ABS . SG like-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .1. SG I like wine.
(Ondarru)
We propose a two-step procedure for agreement that accounts for these facts: (80) Agreement by Probe P with Goal G proceeds in two steps: a. Agree-Link: in the syntax, P triggers Agree with G (possibly more than one). The result is a link between P and G. b. -Agree-Copy: In the Exponence Conversion module, the -features of G are copied onto P linked to it by Agree.
The idea that syntactic Agree is more abstract than simply copying features from Goal to Probe is proposed in some Minimalist work (Frampton and Gutmann 2006, Pesetsky and Torrego 2007, Reuland 2005), and is standard in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Gramar (Pollard and Sag 1994, Sag et al. 2003). Our implementation here in terms of a postsyntactic copy operation is very similar to Robinson 2008:Chapter4 and Bhatia et al. 2010. In addition, Agree-Copy can be subject to language-particular constraints. Specically, we propose the following condition for Basque:35 (81) Condition on Agree-Copy in Basque Only features from an absolutive Goal can be copied to a Probe.
The result, as desired, is that T only surfaces with absolutive agreement features. In most Basque dialects, this masks the fact that T agrees with dative clitics as well. However, in certain dialects, other morphological operations that precede Agree-Copy can result in surface agreement with a dative clitic. This is the case of Lekeitio, where a dialect-specic Impoverishment rule changes the case features of rst person dative clitics to absolutive in ditransitive auxiliaries:36 (82) First Dative Impoverishment (Lekeitio) a. Structural description: a present tense auxiliary with two clitics CL1 and CL2 , where (i) CL1 is [+Motion, +Peripheral, +Author], and (ii) CL2 is [+Motion, Peripheral].
The postsyntactic theory of agreement proposed in Bobaljik 2008b includes conditions similar to (81). to Hualde et al. (1994:127), the phenomenon occurs optionally in the past. However, the past ditransitive paradigms given in that work (p. 127) only contain forms where the rule does not apply. In the absence of an explicit listing of all past forms where the rule applies, we have opted to provide an analysis where (82) only applies in the present tense (see Tables 45 and 78 in the Appendix). It could easily be extended by adding a condition to the effect that it optionally applies in the past.
36 According
35
82 b. Structural change:
CL1
Chapter 2. The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement [Motion, Peripheral, +Author].
This has important consequences for the morphology of auxiliaries containing these clitics. Consider the following examples (the rst one is repeated from (68)): (83) Mokixe-k gu-rii tabaku-a erragala-0 gi / -aitu -0. (>gaitxu) / Mokixe.ERG us.DATi tobacco-ABS . SG give-PRF CL . A .1. PLi -PRS .1. PL -CL . E .3. SG Mokixe gave us tobacco. (Lekeitio, Fernndez 2001:153) Ni-rii ber-ak esa-n ni -au -0. / (>nau) me-DATi he-ERG say-PRF CL . A .1. SG i -PRS .1. SG /3. SG -CL . E .3. SG He has told me so. (Lekeitio, de Azkue 1925:539) Su-k ni-rii tabaku-a emo-n ni -a -su. you-ERG . SG me-DATi tobacco-ABS . SG give-PRF CL . A .1. SG i -PRS .1. SG -CL . E .2. SG You(Sg) have given me tobacco. (Lekeitio, Fernndez 2001:150)
(84)
(85)
As indicated by coindexation, the rst person dative argument is doubled by a clitic that is morphologically absolutive, as witnessed by the fact that it surfaces to the left of T.37 This is a consequence of (82) changing its features to absolutive. Crucially, the change in case features in the clitic also enables copying of its -features onto T, the result being that T surfaces with rst person agreement in (83)(85). Although T Agree-Links with both the dative clitic and the absolutive argument, and Agree-Copy copies both sets of features to T, only dative agreement features surface in T in (83) and (85), and the T exponent -au- in (84) can be interpreted as either rst singular (agreeing with the dative argument) or third singular (agreeing with the absolutive argument). The details of the realization of agreement in auxiliaries of this type is dealt with in Subsection 4.4 in Chapter 3. Although (82) changes the case features of the clitic in (83)(85), the features of the doubled dative argument guri/niri remain intact. As discussed in Subsection 4.1, this provides evidence that Agree is with the clitic, not the argument. If T established Agree with the dative argument in (83)(85), the Condition on Agree-Copy in Basque (81) would prevent copying its -features to T, which would not surface with rst person agreement, contrary to fact. Among the three varieties studied in detail in this book, Dative Impoverishment is only present in Lekeitio. Thus, it is the only variety among the three were T ever surfaces with agreement with a dative argument. However, the phenomenon also occurs in other Basque dialects, as described in several traditional as well as generative sources (de Azkue 1925:539, Latte 1944:296, c Hualde et al. 1994:124127, Fernndez 2001, Rez 2008).38 Summarizing, the relation between syntactic Agree-Link and its realization in T is mediated by postsyntactic Agree-Copy. Our view of agreement, then, is one in which inter-terminal relations are established in the syntax, but feature-specic operations are accomplished in the morphology. Although T establishes an Agree relation with both absolutive and dative arguments, only absolutive agreement surfaces in most cases. Deviations from this pattern, resulting in surface agreement with dative arguments, are due to other operations that change case features in clitics.
also results in the clitic being realized as g/n, not ku/t, the expected form for rst person dative clitics. See Section 3 in Chapter 3 for the relation between the linearization of clitics and their exponence. 38 In the generative literature, the phenomenon is known as dative displacement, a label due to Fernndez 2001. See Section 6 in Chapter 5 for further discussion.
37 This
Section 2.4 Agreement 2.4.3 Complementizer agreement Recall that the morphemes in the Basque auxiliary are ordered as follows: (86) Order of morphemes in Basque auxiliaries Abs clitic Tense/Agreement Dat clitic Erg clitic Comp agreement Comp
83
Complementizer agreement is a morpheme that surfaces between the ergative clitic and the complementizer in Biscayan dialects, including Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio. This morpheme is traditionally referred to as plural agreement, since its only overt exponent is -s in the context of plural agreement in T: (87) indab-ak imin-ten d -o -t -s -n -ean (>dotesenean) bean-ABS . PL put-IMP L -PRS .3. PL -CL . E .1. SG -3. PL -CREL -IN . SG when I cook beans (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:262) iddarr-ak ipi-txe bean-ABS . PL put-IMP d -oitu -a -s -n -in (>txuasenin) L -PRS .3. PL -CL . E .1. SG -3. PL -CREL -IN . SG when I cook beans
(88)
(Ondarru)
(87) is a Zamudio example with third plural absolutive agreement in T, and (88) is its translation into Ondarru Basque. In both cases, -s appears between the ergative clitic -t/a and the complementizer -n. Note that the absolutive plural feature is also realized in the T position. This is not transparent in the Zamudio example: although the glosses in (87) faithfully reect the morphosyntactic feature specication of T as third plural, the exponent o is in fact syncretic for the singular/plural distinction in this particular environment in Zamudio, due to idiosyncracies of the relevant vocabulary entries: if the absolutive where third singular instead of plural, T would also be realized as o. However, the fact that the plural feature is also realized in the T position is clear in the Ondarru example, since the singular/plural distinction is not neutralized in this context in this dialect: oitu is specic to third plural agreement (see Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion of Vocabulary Insertion in both Zamudio and Ondarru). Therefore, it seems that -s realizes a morpheme that contains the same feature specication as T. As made clear by the Ondarru example above, this morpheme is not ssioned from T; if that were the case, we would not expect to see the plural feature being realized in the T position as well. This contrasts with the behavior of plural -e in the clitic system, which we argue in Subsection 3.3 in Chapter 3 is ssioned from plural clitics. We propose that this is the consequence of the postsyntactic insertion of a morpheme attached to C that copies all -features from T: (89) Complementizer Agreement Adjoin a morpheme to C with the same -feature specication as T.
The result of this operation is the following structure in the particular case of (88) (coindexation is used here to mark sharing of -features): (90) Complementizer agreement in (88)
84 T T L d Ti ClErg oitu a C C Agri s C n
Given the Linearization procedure proposed in Subsection 2.2, the result, as desired, is that the exponent -s of complementizer agreement surfaces between the ergative clitic (if present) and the complementizer. The analysis proposed above draws an explicit parallel with complementizer agreement with the subject in several West Germanic languages. In fact, Fu (2007, 2008) provides evidence that complementizer agreement in at least some of these languages is the result of a postsyntactic operation that copies features from T, not from the subject. One of his main arguments is that the presence of complementizer agreement correlates with the presence of overt agreement in T, but not with the presence of an overt subject. For instance, complementizer agreement is present in clausal comparatives, where the nite verb is overt, but not in phrasal comparatives, where the subject may be overt, but the nite verb is not (examples from Bayer 1984:269):39 (91) DResl is gresser als wia-st du bist. the.Resl is taller than as-2. SG you are Resl is taller than you are. b. *DResl is gresser als wia-st du. the.Resl is taller than as-2. SG you Resl is taller than you. c. DResl is gresser als wia du. the.Resl is taller than as you Resl is taller than you. a.
(Bavarian)
(Bavarian)
(Bavarian)
A related argument for our analysis of Biscayan complementizer agreement can be found in Lekeitio. As shown in Subsection 4.2, T typically surfaces with agreeement with the absolutive argument. However, in Lekeitio, dative agreement on T is possible, namely in cases where First Dative Impoverishment (82) changes the case of a dative clitic to absolutive. In that case, the -features of the clitic doubling the dative argument are copied to T, as in the following example (repeated from (83)): (92) Mokixe-k gu-ri tabaku-a erragala-0 g / -aitu -0. (>gaitxu) / Mokixe.ERG us.DAT tobacco-ABS . SG give-PRF CL . A .1. PL -PRS .1. PL -CL . E .3. SG Mokixe gave us tobacco. (Lekeitio, Fernndez 2001:153)
Data from First Conjunct Agreement complicate this picture, as acknowledged in Fu 2008. It seems that at least in some of these languages, -features are copied from the subject, not from C (Ackema and Neeleman 2004:236250, van Koppen 2005:Chapter 2).
39
85
Table 2.1: Second person pronouns in Basque (a) Old Basque Singular Plural hi zu (b) Batua Singular Plural Colloquial hi zu-e Formal zu (c) Lekeitio/Ondarru/Zamudio Singular Plural su su-e
Interestingly, if the dative argument is plural, as in (92), the effects of the Impoverishment rule in feeding T agreement are also observable in complementizer agreement. Alongside g-aitu-0, the / form g-aitu-0-s (>gaitxus) in (92) is also possible (Hualde et al. 1994:125). Crucially, comple/ mentizer agreement with a dative argument is only possible whenever T also agrees with a dative argument. This correlation is expected in the present analysis, where the agreement features are copied from T, not from the agreeing argument.40 Furthermore, since surface agreement with the dative argument is due to a postsyntactic rule of Impoverishment, copying of the features from T to C must be postsyntactic as well. The exponent -s of complementizer agreement has two idiosyncratic properties that need to be taken into account. First, it can surface in cases where agreement in T is second person singular: (93) s -aitu -0 /
CL . A .2. SG -PRS .2. SG -CL . E .3. SG
-s -2. SG
In this particular example, -s surfaces optionally in Lekeitio and Zamudio, and it is absent in Ondarru.41 This fact is diachronically intimately related to the colloquial/formal distinction present in second person singular forms in other Basque dialects (Subsection 4.5 in Chapter 1), to which we turn immediately below. The following is the generally accepted historical evolution of second person forms in Basque (Alberdi 1995, Trask 1997:196). As shown in Table 2.1, historically, the second person singular pronoun zu (su in Biscayan), as well as its corresponding clitics and agreement morphemes, was in fact plural. The second singular pronoun was hi. At a later stage, plural zu began to be used as a singular formal form, parallel to French vous, with hi restricted to colloquial contexts. However, unlike French, this seems to have triggered the addition of a new second person plural pronoun zu-e by attaching plural -e to zu (on plural -e in clitics and pronouns, see Section 3 in Chapter 3).42 The resulting paradigm, which is still active in many Basque dialects, including standard Batua (Table 2.1), is one where hi is second singular colloquial, zu is second singular formal, and zu-e is second plural (with no colloquial/formal distinction). A further development in some dialects, including Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio, was the neutralization of the colloquial/formal distinction in the singular in favor of formal su. The result is the system discussed in this book and shown
fact that -s is optional in this form is a reex of the more general irregular distribution of this exponent, discussed immediately below. Specically, it is also optional in Lekeitio when agreement in T is with an absolutive rst plural argument (see Table 3 in the Appendix). 41 Differences in the application of certain phonological rules (Section 6 in Chapter 3) account for other surface differences: saitxu(s) in Lekeitio, saitxu in Ondarru, and saitu(s) in Zamudio. 42 This pronoun never surfaces as zu-e (su-e in Biscayan), due to the addition of case morphemes. For instance, it is su-e-k in the absolutive and ergative, and su-e-n in the genitive in Lekeitio, Ondarru and Zamudio.
40 The
86
Singular Plural
Table 2.2: Second person clitics in Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio Absolutive Dative Ergative s-tzu -su s- . . . -e -tzu-e -su-e
in Table 2.1, with singular su and plural su-e. Clitics were also affected by this process, as shown in Table 2.2. For instance, the second person dative clitic in the three varieties discussed here is tzu in the singular, and tzu-e in the plural.43 However, as illustrated by the presence of plural -s in (93), the singular/plural distinction in the second person is neutralized in complementizer agreement.44 Unlike clitics and pronouns, the use of the historically second plural forms as (formal) singular did not trigger the addition of a new second plural exponent in complementizer agreement. We thus propose that this complex historical process has resulted in the following second person system in modern Basque. First, pronouns and clitics are specied for singular/plural number, as reected in the absence/presence of plural -e (Tables 2.12.2). Due to Agree-Link (and AgreeCopy), this distinction is passed along to T, but is neutralized by the following rule that applies at Morphological Structure after -features have been copied onto T:45 (94) M-feature Insertion a. Structural description: a complementizer agreement morpheme specied as (i) [Singular], or (ii) [+Participant, Author, +Singular] b. Structural change: replace [Singular] with [+M]. In all other instances of complementizer agreement, replace [+Singular] with [M]. Vocabulary entry for complementizer agreement s [+M]
(95)
Rule (94) replaces the number feature in both plural and second singular complementizer agreement with the feature [+M]. This neutralizes number in the context of second person. The unique entry for this morpheme (95) realizes this feature as -s, thus accounting for its idiosyncratic distribution: plural and second person singular. Note that (94) does not affect all second person singular morphemes. It only affects agreement features in C. For instance, it does not affect clitics, where the second person singular/plural distinction is not neutralized. Thus, singular in Basque is not completely syncretic with plural in the second person. This syncretism is particular to agreement in C, as discussed above.
analyze this plural clitic morpheme as the result of ssion in Section 3 in Chapter 3. Note that in the absolutive paradigm, the morpheme realizing person is to the left of T, while the ssioned plural morpheme is to the right of T. The surface position of this plural clitic exponent is discussed in Section 3 in Chapter 5. 44 It might be argued that verbal agreement in general has neutralized the number distinction in the second person. For instance, aitu in (93) is also the exponent of T agreeing with rst and second plural in the present tense. In Section 4 in Chapter 3, we provide an analysis of the realization of T in which aitu and similar exponents realize a person feature, not number. 45 The analysis is somewhat more complicated in dialects with a colloquial/formal distinction in the singular, as discussed above. In case (94aii), the morpheme must be specied as formal.
43 We
87
Although it changes the feature composition of some morphemes, M-feature Insertion is very different in nature from Impoverishment. The latter type of rule effects a change from marked to unmarked feature bundles. For instance, First Dative Impoverishment (82) in Lekeitio (Subsection 4.2) changes the case features of a rst person clitic from marked dative to unmarked absolutive. Chapters 34 provide other cases of Impoverishment, which always results in a relatively unmarked feature bundle. One of the main objectives of this book is to establish Impoverishment as a bona de rule of the the grammar, and as the main way in which the feature composition of morphemes can be altered in the postsyntactic component. On the other hand, the number syncretism discussed above seems to be due to the opposite type of change: in the second person, unmarked singular agreement is apparently realized as if it were marked plural. Having both types of feature-changing rules (marked to unmarked and vice versa) would considerably weaken the theory. We propose to restrict the power of the grammar by limiting neutralization-to-marked syncretisms to a minimum, by implementing all of them in terms of an M feature. We view this as a feature made available to all languages by UG. The grammar only allows for rules that reduce the markedness of feature bundles (Impoverishment). It also allows for rules that replace certain feature-value pairs with [+M] (and [M]). Since only one such feature is available for each language, the analysis predicts that this type of syncretism, from unmarked to marked, always results in the insertion of the same exponent. Thus, in Basque auxiliaries, the only type of syncretism that seems to call for a change from unmarked to marked feature values is the neutralization of number in second person complementizer agreement. The analysis correctly predicts that all other cases of syncretism are due to Impoverishment rules that result in unmarked feature-bundles. Another idiosyncratic property of plural -s is its irregular distribution. As can be seen in the Tables in the Appendix, it is a reliable marker for third person plural agreement in transitive auxiliaries without a dative clitic and in intransitive auxiliaries with a dative clitic. However, its distribution in other auxiliary forms is quite irregular and subject to dialectal variation. For instance, when agreeing with a rst plural absolutive argument in the present tense, it appears in the context of a second singular ergative clitic in Zamudio (g-o-su-s), but not in the context of a third singular ergative clitic (g-aitu-0; see Table 3 in the Appendix). Dialectal variation in the distribution of -s / can be observed in the present tense ditransitive form with a third plural dative clitic and a rst singular ergative clitic: it is present in Lekeitio (d-o-tz-t-e-s) and Zamudio (d-o-tz-e-t-s), but not in Ondarru (d-o-tz-e-t; see Table 5 in the Appendix). We assume that this is due to dialect particular rules that delete the plural morpheme in specic morphological contexts. Thus concludes our account of complementizer agreement in Biscayan Basque. Although admittedly complex, the analysis provides an account of its highly idiosyncratic placement and distribution within the auxiliary based on independently needed mechanisms made available by the theory. Previous literature on the exponent -s in Biscayan Basque has noted its exceptional placement at the end of the auxiliary (e.g. Laka 1993a:3537, Hualde 2003b:210211, Rezac 2006:Appendix BM, 711; the exponent is represented as -z in all these works, following Standard Basque orthography). Our claim that it is the realization of complementizer agreement provides a natural account of its position. Also exceptional is the fact that what otherwise seems to be an exponent of plural agreement appears in cases of second person singular agreement. This is a universal caveat in the description of second person agreement in the Basque literature, attributed to the particular history of second person morphology in this language, and our account above makes sense of this idiosyncratic fact in terms of a general theory of syncretism.
88
2.4.4 Summary: The syntax of agreement The root of the Basque auxiliary is a T morpheme that is an agreement Probe. This simple idea, which nds a parallel in many other languages, provides a relatively simple account of some of the syntactic properties of the Basque auxiliary. Further justication of this claim is provided in Section 4 in Chapter 3, which provides a full account of the morphophonological properties of this morpheme in the varieties of Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio. Our analysis differs signicantly from previous accounts of the auxiliary root, both in its syntactic and postsyntactic aspects. Most importantly, this part of the auxiliary is often decomposed into several morphemes. In sharp contrast to this, we claim that it is a single morpheme. These different types of analysis of the syntax of auxiliaries make differing predictions concerning their morphophonology, and in Chapter 3 we test these predictions, concluding that our analysis provides a more satisfactory account. 2.5 Default agreement In the theoretical framework assumed in this book, there are several possible sources for what on the surface might be described as default agreement. First, an agreement morpheme (or any morpheme for that matter) might have a default realization due to lack of a specic vocabulary entry to realize its features, or because of earlier application of an impoverishment rule. This type of default feature realization is a central aspect of all realizational theories or morphology, including Distributed Morphology, and its instantiation in Basque agreement is discussed at several points in Chapter 3. In this Section, we concentrate on what can be considered bona de default agreement. Extending arguments made in Preminger 2009, we argue that in several cases, AgreeLink and Agree-Copy fail to assign -features to T, in which case unmarked third singular features are inserted in this node. The Section concludes with discussion of differences with cliticization, where failure of clitic movement does not result in insertion of a default pronominal clitic. Following Preminger 2009, we propose that failure of agreement results in insertion of default -features in the Probe. Given the two-stage theory of agreement proposed here, we implement this claim as follows: (96) Default Agreement If Agree-Copy fails to copy features onto a Probe, features with unmarked values are inserted in the Probe.
Given that T in Basque is a Probe for person and number features, default agreement results in third person singular features: (97) Default T agreement in Basque If Agree-Copy fails to copy features onto nite T, the feature set [Participant, Author, +Singular] is inserted in T.
See Chapter 4 for justication of the claim that these are unmarked -feature values. The rst case illustrating (97) comes from Absolutive Promotion. The following is a relevant example, repeated from (47): (98) Ni-ri su-0/ki / ondo jaus-te d -o -t -sui . (>stasu) me-DAT Jon-ABS / ERGi well fall-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .1. SG -CL . E .2. SG i
Section 2.5 Default agreement I like you.
89 (Ondarru)
As shown in Subsection 3.2, T in this sentence agrees with the dative rst singular clitic -t, but not with the promoted second singular clitic -su, which is assigned ergative case due to Absolutive Promotion. Since only features from an absolutive Goal can be copied to T, Agree-Copy applies vacuously. As a result, unmarked third singular features are inserted in T. The second case is provided by unergative verbs. The argument is from Preminger 2009:650 653. Although his analysis of morphemes in Basque auxiliaries differs from ours in important ways described below, the argument holds nevertheless. Most unergative predicates in Basque are realized as transitive, with a light verb e(g)in do and an absolutive-marked nominal (Levin 1983:302305, Laka 1993b, Laka 1996:2.1.2, Etxepare 2003b:388391, 394402):46 (99) Barre-0 i-te / d -o -su? (>su) laugh-ABS do-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .2. SG Do you laugh?
(100)
Jon-ek amen biarr-a ei-txen d -au -0. / Jon-ERG here work-ABS . SG do-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG Jon works here.
(Ondarru)
Since the verb has a syntactically realized third person singular (or plural; see footnote 46) absolutive object, the fact that T is realized with these features is expected. However, unergative predicates that are realized as surface intransitives are also possible: (101) Alkati-ak dimitidu-0 d -au / -0. / mayor-ERG . SG resign-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG The mayor has resigned. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:173) Umi-k amen jolas-ten d -au -e. (>dabe) child-ERG . PL here play-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. PL Children play here.
(102)
(Ondarru)
The predicates sole argument is ergative, and there is no (overt) absolutive DP in these cases. However, T displays third person singular agreement as a consequence of (97). One might get around this conclusion by positing a covert absolutive argument in these cases. This option looks especially attractive under a theory of Argument Structure where all unergative predicates are underlyingly transitive (Hale and Keyser 1993). The contrast between (99)(100) and (101)(102) is simply due to variation in the surface realization of the object position in this type of theory.
absolutive argument is typically marked as indenite, as in (99) (see Subsection 4.2 in Chapter 1 for (in)deniteness marking in Basque nominals). In some dialects, some of these are marked as denite singular, such as biarra work in Ondarru (100). Other predicates in this latter class are formed with the denite singular nouns planti fake and txillixu scream. This is also true in Lekeitio (Hualde et al. 1994:164165) although the list is not the same as in Ondarru (e.g. scream is formed with indenite txilidxo). In some cases, the noun can be denite plural: plantak (to form the predicate to clown) in both dialects, bakiak peace in Lekeitio (cf. denite singular baki in Ondarru), and kariuk caress in Ondarru (cf. indenite kario in Lekeitio). These plural nouns trigger plural agreement in the auxiliary, as expected. Unergative predicates that use denite nouns in Zamudio are found in Gaminde 2000:301305 (e.g. txixe urine, as in Ondarru and Lekeitio).
46 The
90
However, Preminger 2009 discusses a third class of unergative predicates in Basque that must be assumed to trigger default third singular agreement, even under the theories mentioned in the previous paragraph. These unergative predicates involve the same light verb as in (100), but their nominal object bears an oblique case instead of absolutive (Hualde et al. 1994:165166, Etxepare 2003b:396397). The following are examples with inessive case:47 (103) Umi-k amen baltziu-an ei-txen d -au -e. (>dabe) child-ERG . PL here dance-IN . SG do-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. PL Children dance here.
(Ondarru)
(104)
I-ten g -endu -n an kart-etan gero. do-IM CL . E .1. PL -PST.3. SG -CPST there.IN card-IN . PL later We used to play cards indeed. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:303)
Crucially, nominals with inessive case never trigger agreement: (105) erri-xan eo-n d {-i -s / *-a}. Eur-ak they-ABS . PL town-IN . SG be-PRF L {-PRS .3. PL -3. PL / -PRS .3. SG } They have been in town.
(Ondarru)
Although the object of the unergative predicate is not absolutive in (103)(104), T has third singular agreement. The predicate is clearly formed with a light verb and a nominal, but the latter surfaces overtly with inessive case, which never triggers agreement. Positing a covert absolutive argument would thus not have any independent theoretical motivation in this case. Therefore, this class of unergative predicates provides conclusive evidence that in the absence of an absolutive Goal for T, the latter is assigned default third singular agreement features. Indirectly transitive verbs in Basque provide a similar argument. As shown in Subsection 2.2, the internal argument of the verb look is assigned lexical dative case, and the subject is ergative. Thus, sentences with this verb have no absolutive argument. The effect of this in agreement is illustrated in the following example, repeated from (25): (106) Jon-ek Miren-ei bea-tu d -o -tz -0. / (>tza) Jon-ERG Miren-DAT look-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG Jon has looked at Miren.
(Ondarru)
As predicted by (97), T surfaces with unmarked third singular agreement. The behavior of agreement is in sharp contrast with cliticization. Preminger 2009 argues that failure of cliticization on to a host does not result in insertion of a default pronominal clitic. He shows that dative and ergative clitics in Basque behave this way. The clearest case is provided by dative clitics; if no dative argument is present in the clause, the auxiliary lacks a dative clitic: (107) jugeti-k erregala-te d -o -tz -t. (>tzat) Ni-k umi-ai I-ERG child-DAT. SG toy-ABS . PL give-IMP L -PRS .3. PL -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG I give toys away to the child. (Ondarru)
marked as inessive, the noun is denite singular or plural, as in (103) and (104), respectively. With some predicates, an adverb is used instead of an oblique noun.
47 When
Section 2.5 Default agreement (108) Ni-k karamelu-k erregala-te d -oitu -a -s. (>txuas) I-ERG child-DAT. PL give-IMP L -PRS .3. PL -CL . E .1. SG -3. PL I give toys away.
91
(Ondarru)
A dative goal is optional with the verb erregala give away. Whenever the goal is present (overtly or covertly), clitic doubling is obligatory, as illustrated by third singular -tz in (107). If no dative goal is present, no clitic doubling obtains, and no default clitic appears in the dative position in the auxiliary (108). Ergative cliticization follows the same pattern, as can be observed in the following minimal pair: (109) Ni-k basu-0 / apur-tu d -o -t. (>rot) I-ERG glass-ABS break-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG I have broken the glass. Basu-0 apur-tu / d -a. (>re) glass-ABS break-PRF L -PRS .3. SG The glass has broken.
(Ondarru)
(110)
(Ondarru)
Like its English counterpart, the verb apurtu can appear in both transitive (109) and intransitive frames (110). In the former, the ergative subject is obligatorily doubled by a clitic (rst singular -t in (109)). The intransitive frame lacks an ergative argument, and accordingly, no clitic appears in the position of ergative clitics in the auxiliary. The argument in this last case is not as straightforward as with dative clitics. The reason is that the exponent of the third singular ergative clitic is 0 (with one exception discussed in footnote 48 / below): (111) Jon-ek basu-0 / apur-tu d -au -0. / (>rau) Jon-ERG glass-ABS break-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG I have broken the glass.
(Ondarru)
Thus, one might be tempted to argue that a default third person singular ergative clitic is present in intransitive (110). However, auxiliaries with a third singular ergative clitic and those without an ergative clitic are not identical. This can be seen in (110) and (111): T has the same tense (present) and -features (third singular, agreeing with the absolutive argument), but its form is different: a in the former, and au in the latter. As discussed in Section 4 in Chapter 3, this is contextual allomorphy of T that is sensitive to the presence or absence of an ergative clitic in the auxiliary. Thus, the form of T in (110) signals the absence of an ergative clitic, while the form of T in (111) signals the presence of such a clitic (even though it is realized as 0). In other words, if a default / third singular ergative clitic were present in (110), the form of the auxiliary should be identical to (111), which is not the case. The presence of an ergative clitic, even when realized as 0, is signaled elsewhere in the aux/ iliary. In particular, it also has an effect on the realization of a third person dative clitic (Subsection 3.2 in Chapter 3): (112) Ni-k Jon-ei ardau-0 / emo-0 d -o / -tz -t. (>tzat) I-ERG Jon-DAT wine-ABS . SG give-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D.3. SG -CL . E .1. SG
92 I have given wine to Jon. (113)
Chapter 2. The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement (Ondarru)
Miren-ek Jon-ei ardau-0 / emo-0 d -o / -tz -0. / (>tza) I-ERG Jon-DAT wine-ABS . SG give-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D.3. SG -CL . E .1. SG I have given wine to Jon. (Ondarru) Jon-ei ardau-0 / gusta-ten g -a -ko. Jon-DAT wine-ABS . SG like-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D.3. SG Jon likes wine.
(114)
(Ondarru)
In the context of an ergative clitic, the third singular dative clitic exponent is tz (112), even if the ergative clitic is third singular and hence realized as 0 (113). In the absence of an ergative clitic, / the allomorph of the dative clitic is ko (114). The fact that the allomorphs of the dative clitics are different in the last two cases provides a further argument for the absence of a default ergative clitic in sentences without ergative arguments.48 To summarize so far, lack of agreement results in insertion of unmarked -features, but the absence of a clitic does not result in insertion of a default clitic. Although the arguments above are adapted from Preminger 2009, the analysis of Basque auxiliaries in that work differs in important ways from ours. The most important difference has to do with the identity of the rst slot in auxiliaries. In our analysis, it is an absolutive clitic: (115) Order of morphemes in Basque auxiliaries Abs clitic Tense/Agreement Dat clitic Erg clitic Comp agreement Comp
On the other hand, in Premingers account, this rst slot is an absolutive agreement morpheme. In the present account, absolutive (and, irrelevantly here, dative) agreement is realized in the second slot (together with tense features). Perhaps surprisingly, the argument presented above to the effect that lack of agreement results in default third singular agreement is not affected by this difference in analysis, as we show immediately below. Recall that the argument is based on unergative predicates like the following (repeated from (103)): (116) Umi-k amen baltziu-an ei-txen d -au -e. (>dabe) child-ERG . PL here dance-IN . SG do-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. PL Children dance here.
(Ondarru)
The difference between the two analyses has to do with the rst exponent in the auxiliary, d in this example. In Premingers view, d is the realization of third singular agreement. Indeed, it also surfaces in sentences with a third singular absolutive argument, such as (111). Since (116) lacks an absolutive argument, and d (in Premingers account) is the realization of third singular
the Lekeitio and Zamudio counterparts of Ondarru (113), the exponent of the third singular ergative clitic is o: d-o-tz-o. This allomorph of the ergative clitic is limited to the context in this example, namely when it is preceded by a third singular dative clitic (see Subsection 3.2 in Chapter 3). If a default third singular ergative clitic were present in (114), the expected form of this auxilary would thus include the dative clitic allomorph -tz and the ergative clitic allomorph -o, contrary to fact: the counterparts of Ondarru g-a-ko in (114) are dx-a-ko (Lekeitio) and d-a-ko (Zamudio), not *dx/d-a-tz-o. Even if one tried to argue that the nal -o in dx/d-a-ko is a default third singular ergative clitic, the form of the dative clitic (k in this analysis) would remain unaccounted for. As in Ondarru, the form of the dative clitic is sensitive to the presence of an ergative clitic, regardless of the analysis.
48 In
Section 2.6 Complementizers within the Auxiliary Complex
93
absolutive agreement, the presence of d in in this example provides evidence that in the absence of an argument to agree with, agreement is realized as default third singular. Our assumptions about the morphological makeup of the auxiliary are different, but the conclusion is the same. As discussed above, absolutive agreement is realized as the second exponent, au in (116). This is the realization of third singular agreement (see e.g. (111)), so its presence in the absence of an absolutive argument in (116) provides evidence that this auxiliary has default third singular agreement. In our analysis, the rst slot in the auxiliary is typically lled by an absolutive clitic (not agreement). However, as discussed in Subsection 2.1 and reected in our glosses in (116) and other examples, d is not an absolutive clitic. Rather, it is the exponent of an L-morpheme, inserted in this auxiliary and others due to a Noninitiality requirement imposed on T (Chapter 5). Indeed, given our analysis of cliticization and PCC effects in Section 2, d cannot be the exponent of an absolutive clitic, since Basque does not have third person absolutive clitics. Note, furthermore, that the presence of d in (116) cannot be used to argue that in the absence of an absolutive clitic a default clitic is inserted to the left of T. We provide extensive argumentation in Chapters 56 that the operation that inserts the L-morpheme in this position and the constraint that triggers its application apply late in the postsyntactic component, and are quite independent of the syntax of cliticization. To conclude, failure of agreement results in insertion of unmarked features in the Agree Probe, but failure of cliticization does not result in attachement of an unmarked pronominal clitic on the clitic host. Premingers arguments hold despite differences in assumptions about the morphological decomposition of Basque auxiliaries, which speaks to the strength of the argument.
2.6 Complementizers within the Auxiliary Complex The nal exponent in nite auxiliaries is the complementizer. T, together with whatever clitic may be adjoined to it, undergoes Head Movement to C. Two other morphemes are adjoined to C: an ergative clitic, when present (Subsection 2.2), and complementizer agreement (Subsection 4.3). Given the algorithm in (27) (Subsection 2.2), the result is that C is linearized at the end of the auxiliary, as desired.49 In matrix present tense auxiliaries, C is not overt. In other contexts, it is realized as -la or -n.50 The C exponent -la is found in embedded declarative complement clauses: (117) Pentza-ten d -o -t bidxar etorr-iko d -a -la. think-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG tomorrow come-FUT L -PRS .3. SG -CDECL I think he will come tomorrow. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:183)
The distribution of -n is more complex. First, it appears in different types of embedded clauses, including interrogatives and relative clauses:51
expository purposes, we assume that there is a single C-like head per clause, and abstract away from a more articulated analysis of higher functional projections (Bhatt and Yoon 1992, Rizzi 1997). 50 Both forms have allomorphs with an epenthetic vowel. See Subsection 6.1 in Chapter 3. 51 Both -la and -n also surface in certain adjunct clauses, in some cases with the help of different inectional afxes or postpositions (Artiagoitia 2003a:711722).
49 For
94 (118)
Chapter 2. The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement Es d-a-i-tt nois alla-ko d -i -s -n (>disen). not L-PRS .3. SG-know-CL . E .1. SG when arrive-FUT L -PRS .3. PL -3. PL -CINT I dont know when theyll arrive. (Ondarru) txakurr-a ekarr-i d -au -0 / -n (>daben) mutill-a. dog-ABS . SG bring-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG -CREL boy-ABS . SG the boy that has brought the dog. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:190)
(119)
Matrix past tense auxiliaries also have an overt complementizer exponent -n: (120) Gorka-k arpei-dxa garbi-ttu 0 / -eu -n (>eban). Gorka-ERG face-ABS . SG wash-PRF CL . E .3. SG -PST.3. SG -CPST Gorka washed his face. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:182)
Although segmentically identical, embedded -n and matrix past tense -n have different prosodic properties, discussed in De Rijk 1972:2023 and Hualde et al. 1994:185. The presence of an overt complementizer in matrix clauses might seem odd. However, the phenomenon is well-attested crosslinguistically. In particular, Korean (Bhatt and Yoon 1992), Gascon (Campos 1992) and Welsh (Borsley et al. 2007:3437) have overt complementizers in matrix clauses, including afrmative sentences. As is clear from the distribution of its different exponents, C in Basque must be specied for tense, in addition to the more common features found in this functional category. Tense-marking is also found in Irish complementizers (Chung and McCloskey 1987:218220, Cottel 1995).52 We leave a detailed analysis of these features for future work. The fact that the particle -n does not appear in the present tense in matrix clauses has led some authors to claim that -n in matrix past tense clauses is the realization of T (Laka 1993a, Albizu and Eguren 2000, Fernndez and Albizu 2000, Albizu 2002, Rezac 2006, 2008). As should be clear from our discussion in different parts of this Chapter, this claim is not compatible with our analysis, where T is identied with the traditional root of the auxiliary. Two pieces of evidence favor our view. First, -n is not limited to indicative past tense auxiliaries in matrix clauses. In Lekeitio and Ondarru, it also appears in the imperative mood:53 (121) Es d -o -i -su -n (>toxun) not L -PRS .3. SG -IMPR -CL . E .2. SG -CIMP apur-tu ori-0 / ma-xe. break-PRF that-ABS . SG table-ABS . SG Dont break that table.
(Ondarru)
A stronger argument comes from the fact that past tense -n is in complementary distribution with other complementizers in embedded clauses:54
in Basque, tense-marking on the complementizer cooccurs with tense-marking on the nite verb in Irish. It is possible that tense features in C are due to the same postsyntactic concord process that copies -features from T in C (Subsection 4.3). 53 The distribution of imperative -n is somewhat complicated, and varies from dialect to dialect. In Ondarru, it is only found in transitive auxiliaries. In Lekeitio, it is found in some, but not all, transitive auxiliaries (Hualde et al. 1994:130131). 54 Many past tense auxiliaries in Ondarru are exceptions to this. In particular, past tense -n often cooccurs with -la in embedded declaratives. For instance, the counterpart of Lekeitio s-a-la in (122) is s-a-n-la (>sanela) in Ondarru. On
52 As
Section 2.6 Complementizers within the Auxiliary Complex (122)
95
Miren-ek es g -aitu -0 / -s -n (>gaittusen) esa-n Miren-ERG not CL . A .1. PL -PST.1. PL -CL . E .3. SG -1. PL -CPST say-PRF batzar bat-0 / ego-n s -a -la meeting one-ABS . SG be-PRF L -PST.3. SG -CDECL Miren didnt tell us that there was a meeting. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:184) Lor-ak nor-i emo-ngo ower-ABS . PL who-DAT give-FUT 0 / -eu -tz -s -n (>eutzasan) CL . E .3. SG -PST.3. PL -CL . D .3. SG -3. PL -CINT pregunta-0 n / -eu -tz -n (>neutzan). ask-PRF CL . E .1. SG -PST.3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CPST I asked him who he would give the owers to. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:185)
(123)
The auxiliary in the embedded clause in (122) is s-a-la, and its matrix clause counterpart is s-a-n. The matrix counterpart of embedded 0-eu-tz-s-n in (123) is 0-eu-tz-s-n. In both cases, matrix past / / tense -n is replaced by a different complementizer (-la and -n) in embedded clauses, that is, they are in complementary distribution. This provides evidence that matrix past tense -n is of the same category as complementizers. A further argument that matrix past tense -n is a complementizer is provided in Subsection 6.1, where it is shown that it displays allomorphy patterns exclusive to members of this category. As a nal note, we would like to point out that there are other complementizer-like elements in Basque that do not surface in the same position as -n and -la.55 Of particular interest here is conditional ba which appears to the immediate left of nite verbs:56 (124) Il kanp-ak, iru-0 / entzu-ten ba s -endu -n die toll-ABS . PL three-ABS hear-IMP if CL . E .2. SG -PST.3. PL -CPST gixon-a il-0 / d -a. man-ABS . SG die-PRF L -PRS .3. SG Death tolls, if you heard three, a man was dead. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:85)
Furthermore, it is not in complementary distribution with past tense -n, as illustrated in these examples. Given these syntactic properties, it is safe assume that ba- is not a complementizer. On the other hand, there are syntactic grounds to classify ba- under the category of modal particles, a set of elements used to express evidentiality or to mark different types of interrogatives (and, in the case of ba, to mark a clause as the antecedent of a conditional).57 The following is a
the other hand, past tense -n does not cooccur with embedded -n, and only a single n surfaces. We speculate that this is due to Fission of C in embedded declarative context, but a more detailed analysis would depend on a more formal examination of the features involved in Basque complementizers, a task that we leave for future work. 55 We concentrate here only on conditional ba. See Artiagoitia 2003a:723724, 727736 for other complementizerlike elements in Basque. 56 Conditional ba is typically written as part of the nite verb word (e.g. basendun in (124)). On the other hand, modal particles, which have the same prosodic properties as ba, are typically written as separate words (see below). We adopt a uniform orthographical convention for all these elements and write them as words separate from the nite verb. 57 Apart from conditional ba, the modal particles present in Lekeitio and Ondarru are the evidentials ete perhaps and ei seemingly (Hualde et al. 1994:151152). Examples of both particles in Zamudio can be found in Gaminde
96 relevant example: (125)
Lagun-ak etorr-i ei d -ira -s. friend-ABS . PL come-PRF EVID L -PRS .3. PL -3. PL The friends seem to have come.
As shown in Ortiz de Urbina 2003b:319320, it appears in the same position, and is in complementary distribution with them. Hualde et al. (1994:151) also argue that ba belongs in the same category as modal particles on morphophonological grounds. To conclude, T moves to C, and the latter is realized as the last exponent in the nite auxiliary, as 0, -n or -la. Several features are responsible for the realization of this position, including matrix / vs. embedded position, force (declarative/interrogative), niteness, and tense. Although the matrix past tense complementizer -n is somewhat unique crosslinguistically, the features it is based on are well-attested in different languages as being part of C. Modal particles, including conditional ba, do not belong to the category C, as their syntax differs signicantly from true complementizers. We leave an analysis of their syntax for future work. 2.7 Conclusion: Cliticization vs. Agreement In most cases, Basque auxiliaries are decomposed into the following morphemes: (126) Order of morphemes in Basque auxiliaries Abs clitic1 Tense/Agreement2 Dat clitic3 Erg clitic4 Comp agreement5 Comp6
This particular decomposition differs from that found elsewhere in the Basque literature, and this Chapter provides initial arguments for this particular view. In particular, our analysis can be summarized as follows: (127) Cliticization Morphemes 1, 3 and 4 are pronominal clitics, moved to T and C from their basegenerated position within vP. Agreement a. Morpheme 2 is T, which is an Agree Probe. b. Morpheme 5 is complementizer agreement, a morpheme attached to C (morpheme 6) which copies its features from T. T-to-C movement.
(128)
(129)
This basic split between cliticization and agreement is the most basic ingredient in our explanation of the multiple exponence problem in Basque nite verbs. The distinction between the two phenomena is reected in several properties of the Basque auxiliary. The rst one, discussed in Section 5, has to do with sentences that lack arguments to trigger the relevant operation. Although the absence of the relevant operation does not result in a crash in either case, the output is different. In the case of agreement, the result is insertion of unmarked -features in the Agree Probe (default agreement). In the case of cliticization, no default clitic is attached to the clitic host.
2000:78, 85. See Ortiz de Urbina 2003b for modal particles in other dialects.
Section 2.7 Conclusion: Cliticization vs. Agreement
97
The second difference between agreement and cliticization has to do with sentences where two arguments trigger the relevant operation. In the case of agreement, T agrees with both dative and absolutive arguments (Subsections 4.14.3), a case of Multiple Agree. However, in the case of cliticization, the result is a crash, which in some cases can be prevented by a repair operation (Subsections 3.13.2). In particular, the Condition on Clitic Hosts prevents cliticization of both absolutive and dative clitics to T, which in some cases can trigger cliticization of the absolutive to C. The fact that we can explain all these properties of Basque auxiliaries provides evidence for this view of the division of labor between agreement and cliticization. In the next Chapter, we strengthen this argument by providing detailed analyisis of the morphophonology of all these morphemes in Basque.
Chapter 3 The Morphophonology of Basque Finite Auxiliaries
3.1 Introduction The previous Chapter provides evidence for a series of novel proposals concerning the morphosyntax of Basque nite auxiliaries. In particular, the claim that auxiliaries contain both pronominal clitics and agreement plays a crucial role in our analysis, and, we believe, is central for a proper understanding of the syntax and morphology of verbal inection in Basque, including the phenomenon of multiple exponence. This Chapter complements this claim and others by providing an account of the mapping from the features of the terminal nodes of pronominal clitics and tense/agreement onto their phonological form.1 We concentrate on the three dialects that provide the main empirical base of this book (Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio), and provide detailed accounts of both Vocabulary Insertion and phonological processes in indicative auxiliaries in these dialects. Although the abstract morphosyntax of auxiliaries is fairly uniform across Basque dialects, their morphophonology is a source of great variation. By providing detailed analyses of the realization of auxiliaries in three specic dialects, we fulll two main objectives of the present study. First, we achieve descriptive adequacy by accounting for all relevant details of the syntax, morphology, and phonology of auxiliaries. Second, we provide support for the explanatory adequacy of our analysis by explaining surface variation among dialects in terms of a sufciently abstract analysis of the morphosyntax of Basque auxiliaries, which is in turn couched within a restrictive theory of morphology and its interaction with syntax and phonology. The three dialects studied here are sufciently different to provide empirical depth to our analysis of dialectal variation, but they are also similar enough to test specic differences in their grammars. This Chapter is organized as follows. We begin in Section 2 with certain claims about the role of contextual restrictions and competition in Vocabulary Insertion, which play an important role in our account of several aspects of the realization of auxiliaries. Section 3 provides an analysis of VI in pronominal clitics, including Fission of the plural clitic exponent -e. This Section also provides further arguments for the claim made in Chapter 2 that Basque has no third person absolutive clitics, and discusses the morphophonology of plural marking in Basque auxiliaries. The greatest source of morphophonological variation in nite auxiliaries is the realization of T (tense/agreement), which is the focus of Section 4. We provide a full account of VI in this terminal node, and discuss the main differences found among the three dialects. Our account includes the cases of agreement with multiple arguments in Lekeitio introduced in Subsection 4.2 in Chapter 2.
realization of C and complementizer agreement are relatively straightforward, and are dealt with in Section 6 and Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 2, respectively.
1 The
99
100
Chapter 3. The Morphophonology of Basque Finite Auxiliaries
As we show there, the intricate patterns of exponence in these auxiliaries fall out naturally from the syntax proposed in Chapter 2 and our specic implementation of Vocabulary Insertion. Section 5 compares previous accounts of the realization of auxiliaries with ours, with special reference to the complex patterns of syncretism and contextual allomorphy found in tense/agreement. The nal piece of our account of the realization of auxiliaries is given in Section 6, which provides discussion of all the relevant phonological processes that map the underlying representations provided by VI to the surface forms given in the Appendix, as well as those that mainly apply across word boundaries. The Chapter concludes with a summary of the main results in Section 7.
3.2 Vocabulary Insertion Vocabulary Insertion (VI) is the postsyntactic operation that inserts exponents in morphemes (terminal nodes). VI is based on a language-particular list of vocabulary entries, which have the following general form: (1) General schema for vocabulary entries PhonExp(PE) MORPH / CT X T
This schema is to be understood as stating that the phonological exponent PE 2 is to be inserted in a terminal node T N whose morphosyntactic feature specication (MFS) is matched by MORPH and whose context is matched by CT X T . In this particular context, match denotes a type of subset relation: a feature specication matches another feature specication if the former is a subset of the latter. In the case of the contextual restriction CT X T this matching relation is somewhat different, as discussed below. For any entry with the form in (1), we refer to MORPH as its MFS, and to CT X T as its contextual restriction. As discussed below, the Category feature plays a special role in our theory of Vocabulary Insertion, and the reader should take the following category-related notational conventions into account. For instance, a fully explicit formulation of the entry in (21c) (Subsection 3.2 below) is the following: (2) s [Category: D, +Participant, Author]/ [Category: T]
This is an entry compatible with a second person clitic (i.e. of category D) when left-adjacent to a T node. For ease of exposition, we only show the value of this feature in vocabulary entries. Thus, under this convention, (2) can be abbreviated to: (3) s [D, +Participant, Author]/ T
Furthermore, since the discussion in the text in Subsection 3.2 makes it clear that this is an entry for clitics, we often omit the Category feature altogether from its MFS, resulting in our briefest formulation in (21c), shown here: (4) s [+Participant, Author]/ T
otherwise noted, we keep this part of entries informal, and specify PE with the standardized orthography used in examples throughout this book.
2 Unless
Section 3.2 Vocabulary Insertion
101
However, the value of the Category feature in the contextual restriction (T) cannot be omitted, since this would result in crucial loss of information. We follow this notational conventions for the sake of brevity throughout this book, except in cases where explicit mention of category is crucial for the discussion. In this Section, we make two specic proposals about Vocabulary Insertion. In Subsection 2.1, we claim, following Embick 2010, that contextual restrictions on vocabulary entries are based on linear adjacency (Subsection 2.1). Subsection 2.2 discusses two issues that arise in considering competition among exponents for insertion in terminal nodes. First, the Category feature plays a special role: category in the MFS and contextual restriction of vocabulary entries takes precedence over other feature specications in this competition. This is a novel claim in the DM literature, for which we provide evidence later in the Chapter by discussing cases of what we term positional neutralization. Second, we adapt a proposal from van Koppen (2005) concerning VI in terminal nodes with more than one set of -features; in a nutshell, we propose that VI proceeds as usual in these cases, which accounts for the realization of multiple agreement in Lekeitio. These three components of our account represent particular analytical choices allowed by the DM framework, and are crucial in accounting for several morphological properties of Basque nite auxiliaries. 3.2.1 Contextual restrictions and linear adjacency In presenting the architecture of the grammar in Chapter 1, we made explicit the claim that Linearization of morphemes precedes VI. This has important consequences for the application of VI. Since it occurs after Linearization, linear order is taken into account in constraining the context in which particular exponents are inserted. This is reected in our formalization of vocabulary Y . Following Embick 2010, entries, where the contextual restriction has the general form X we propose that X and Y , which can be null, are MFSs that must match (i.e. be subsets of) the MFS of the morphemes to the immediate left and right, respectively, of the morpheme targeted by Vocabulary Insertion.3 This is the standard formalization of structural descriptions of rules in Generative Phonology, which we adopt here. For ease of exposition, we refer to the fact that the contextual restriction of an entry matches the context of terminal node in this way as the former being a substring of the latter. What is crucial about this formalization is that it embodies the claim that the morphological context for insertion of exponents is constrained by linear adjacency.4 Specically, given a vocabulary entry with the contextual restriction X Y , the entry is not eligible for insertion in a terminal node with the context X1 Z1 Y1 or X2 Z2Y2 (Z1 , Z2 nonnull), even if X matches X1/2 and Y matches Y1/2 . Although in many cases linear adjacency coincides with structural adjacency (sisterhood), this is not always the case. As shown in different parts of the present Chapter, Basque provides several examples where this particular interpretation of contextual restriction in vocabulary entries is [Ergative, X ], which needed. For instance, several entries for T have the contextual restriction species that the entry is eligible for insertion in terminal nodes that are left-adjacent to an ergative clitic containing the feature set X (Section 4). Although T and the ergative clitic are linearly adjacent in some auxiliaries, they are never sisters:
adopt the standard convention of not specifying the context if both X and Y are null. might be additional locality constraints on VI, such as proposed in Bobaljik 2000, Adger et al. 2003 and Embick 2010. We abstract away from these in this work.
4 There 3 We
102 (5)
Chapter 3. The Morphophonology of Basque Finite Auxiliaries Linearized structure of a transitive auxiliary with a clitic adjoined to the left of T C T ClAbs T ClErg C C Agr C
Nevertheless, an entry with the contextual restriction [Ergative, X ] is eligible for insertion in T in this context, as predicted by our analysis. Furthermore, the account predicts that any morpheme that linearly intervenes between T and the ergative clitic (regardless of its structural position) blocks insertion of this entry: (6) Linearized structure of a transitive auxiliary with a clitic adjoined to the right of T C T T ClDat ClErg C C Agr C In this case, the dative clitic adjoined to the right of T blocks the insertion of an entry with the [Ergative, X ]. Crucially, the structural relation between T and the ergative contextual restriction clitic is identical in (5) and (6). Thus, what blocks insertion of the exponent in the latter is due to a difference in linear, not structural, relations. 3.2.2 Competition among vocabulary entries As noted above, only certain entries are eligible for insertion at a given terminal node. This is determined by the following principle: (7) Subset Principle Only an entry whose MFS matches the MFS of a terminal node T N and whose contextual restriction matches the context of T N is eligible for insertion in T N.
In many cases, several vocabulary entries are compatible with a terminal node, which establishes a competition for the insertion of an exponent into that node. This claim is crucial in all realizational theories of morphology, including DM, and allows them to account for syncretic phenomena. The entry that wins this competition is the most specic one. What most specic" means depends on particular implementations, resulting in different predictions about competition between vocabulary entries. A standard interpretation is as follows: (8)
5 The
Competition for Vocabulary Insertion at terminal node T N:5

procedure in (8) typically selects a single entry. See below for cases where more than one entry is selected.
Section 3.2 Vocabulary Insertion a. b.
103
If more than one entry is selected by (7), select the entry whose MFS is not a subset of the MFS in any other entry in (7). Among the entries in (8a), select the entry (or entries) whose contextual restriction is not a substring of the contextual restriction in any other entry in (8a).
We propose the following addition to this procedure: (9) The role of Category in competion for Vocabulary Insertion The procedure in (8) applies rst only taking into account the Category feature in the MFS and the contextual restriction in the list of vocabulary entries. If this results in more than one entry being selected, VI proceeds as in (8) taking into account all features in order to select an entry from this set.
This formulation differs in a crucial way from standard interpretations of Vocabulary Insertion in DM (e.g. Halle and Marantz 1993), since category features are given preference over other features. Crucially, it gives rise to cases of positional neutralization, in which category-specicity in the contextual restriction of vocabulary entries is given preference over specicity in their MFS. The procedure (8) can be illustrated by considering two abstract cases of competition. In both, we consider only entries that are eligible (by (7)) for insertion into a terminal node T N with the following properties, where, for any , C is the value of the Category feature for , and for any n, Fn is a feature-value pair: (10) a. b. The MFS of T N is [CT N , F1 , F2 , F3 ]. The context of T N is [CX , G1 , G2 , G3 ] [CY , H1 , H2 , H3]
The rst case is probably the most commonly found in particular grammars: (11) Case 1: competing entries with different MFS and identical contextual restriction: a. PE1 [CT N , F1 , F2 , F3 ] / [CX , G1 ] b. PE2 [CT N , F1 , F2 ] / [CX , G1 ]
Since the two entries are identical with respect to category, in both their MFS and contextual restriction, other features decide the competition. Since its MFS is more specic, PE1 is selected for insertion in T N. This exponent wins the competition even if its context is not specied as G1 , since MFS takes precedence over contextual restriction in (8). A particularly common subcase is where the contextual restriction is null in both entries. The second type of case is provided by cases where the contextual restriction is different: (12) Case 2: competing entries with the same MFS and different contextual restriction CY a. PE1 [CT N , F1 , F2 , F3 ] / [CX , G1 ] b. PE2 [CT N , F1 , F2 , F3 ] / [CX , G1 ]
In this case, their MFS is identical, so only the contextual restriction is relevant. Since PE1 has a more specic contextual restriction with respect to category, it is the one selected for insertion in T N. This would be true even if the context of PE2 where specied for additional noncatgegorial features, since category-specicity overrides specicity for other features.
104
In the cases above, (8) makes roughly the same predictions as in standard formulations in DM. However, our particular implementation of competition for Vocabulary Insertion has the added advantage that it predicts the existence of positional neutralization, whereby a featural distinction that is realized overtly in a given syntactic context is neutralized in a different context. Consider the following abstract case: (13) Case 5: positional neutralization a. Terminal nodes: (i) T N1 = [CT N , F1 , F2 , F3 ] (ii) T N2 = [CT N , F1 , F2 , F4 ] b. Vocabulary entries: (i) PE1 [CT N , F1 , F2 , F3 ] (ii) PE2 [CT N , F1 , F2 , F4 ] (iii) PE3 [CT N , F1 , F2 ] / CX
Given their MFS, PE1 is only eligible for insertion in T N1 , PE2 in T N2 , and PE3 in both. In contexts not matched by CX , PE3 is ruled out for insertion in either node, so PE1 is inserted in T N1 and PE2 in T N2 . In these contexts, the contrast between F3 and F4 is realized overtly as the contrast between PE1 and PE2 . However, in contexts matched by CX , PE3 wins the competition for insertion in both T N1 and T N2 : even though its MFS is less specic than PE1 and PE2 , its contextual restriction is more specic with respect to category. In these contexts, the featural distinction between F3 and F4 is neutralized. We argue that this type of case, which provides crucial evidence for our theory of Vocabulary Insertion, is illustrated by a specic type of neutralization in Basque clitics. In most cases, case distinctions are realized overtly in clitics. For instance, the second person singular absolutive clitic is s-, while its dative and ergative counterparts are -tzu and -su, respectively. Furthermore, these clitics occupy different positions in the auxiliary: absolutive clitics precede T, and dative and ergative clitics follow T. However, under certain circumstances, both dative and ergative clitics can surface to the left of T, as a result of a linear-based operation called Ergative Metathesis, discussed in detail in Chapter 5. In this position, all three clitics surface in apparent absolutive form: in the second singular, as s-. In other words, case distinctions that are realized overtly in the usual case are neutralized in the position to the left of T. This constitutes a crucial case of positional neutralization that provides evidence for our hypothesis that category-specicity takes precedence over specicity for other features in selecting entries for Vocabulary Insertion. The effect that Ergative Metathesis has on Vocabulary Insertion is discussed in detail in Subsection 4.2. Another theoretically relevant case of competition for Vocabulary Insertion is provided by cases of multiple agreement. As discussed in Section 4 in Chapter 2, Agree-Link and Agree-Copy in Basque auxiliaries typically result in a single set of -features being present in T, namely those originating in an absolutive argument. However, we also discuss there cases where features from both a dative and an absolutive argument are copied onto T. In this case, VI makes two exponents available for insertion, each matching a different subset of -features in T. Following van Koppen 2005:2226, we assume that this establishes further competition among these two exponents, due to the basic assumption in DM that a terminal node can only be realized by a single exponent. Competition among these two exponents proceeds as usual, determined by the specicity the MFS and contextual restriction in the vocabulary entries. We discuss auxiliaries of this type in Subsec-
Section 3.3 Clitic realization in the morphophonology
105
tion 4.4. A nal feature of VI that we need to discuss has to do with cases where the procedure in (8) cannot choose among competing entries because none of them is more specic than the other. Following Noyer 1992 and Harley 1994, we assume that competition is decided by a markedness hierarchy. For our purposes, it is sufcient to adopt a hierarchy where person features are ranked higher than number. For instance, an entry marked as [+Participant] is picked over one that is specied as [Singular] but contains no person features in its MFS. Specic cases of this type are discussed in Subsection 4.4.
3.3 Clitic realization in the morphophonology In this book we argue, contrary to some existing literature, that the set of apparent agreement prexes and sufxes on the auxiliary in Basque are in fact, not the reex of agreement at all, but instead clitics that double an argument. No such proposal would be complete without actually providing an account of the mapping from the abstract syntactic features of the clitic elements to their phonological form. In this Section we provide a complete account of the realization of argumental clitics for ergative, dative, and absolutive. We begin in Subsection 3.1 with a summary of our account of the morphosyntactic processes whose output is the input to VI in clitics, and Subsections 3.23.3 provide a full account of their exponence. The latter Subsection provides an account of the plural clitic exponent -e, which sets the stage for further evidence for our claim that Basque has no third person absolutive clitics in Subsection 3.4, and for some general comments on plural marking in Basque auxiliaries in Subsection 3.5. These last two Subsections do not introduce any new elements in the analysis, but discuss certain properties of the realization of Basque auxiliaries that provide arguments for our general approach to their morphosyntax.
3.3.1 Clitics and morpheme order in the auxiliary In the previous Chapter we showed how certain syntactic and postsyntactic operations derive the basic template of nite auxiliaries: (14) Order of morphemes in Basque auxiliaries Abs clitic Tense/Agreement Dat clitic Erg clitic Comp agreement Comp
The input to Vocabulary Insertion is generated as follows. In the syntax, T agrees with dative and absolutive arguments (if present). Furthermore, an absolutive or dative clitic moves to T, and an ergative clitic moves to C. In both cases, no cliticization occurs if no argument with the relevant clitic is generated in the sentence. After T-to-C movement, the structure of a nite auxiliary is the following: (15) T (ClAbs/Dat ) T C C (ClErg ) C
106
In the postsyntactic component, Agree-Copy copies -features from the Agree Goals to T (under certain conditions), and an agreement morpheme is attached to C, which copies its -features from T: (16) T (ClAbs/Dat ) T (ClErg ) C C C Agr C Given the Linearization rules given in the previous Chapter, we derive the following possible orders: (17) a. b. (ClAbs ) T (ClErg ) AgrC C T (ClDat ) (ClErg ) AgrC C
The structure in (16), with the morpheme order specied in (17), is submitted to Vocabulary Insertion. In the next Subsection, we provide an account of this operation in the three clitic positions. 3.3.2 The realization of clitics Basque has a system of proclitics and enclitics for the various person-number features of the argument they correspond to. As shown above, Linearization, which applies prior to Vocabulary Insertion, determines that absolutive clitics are left-adjacent to T, while dative and ergative clitics follow T. Thus, absolutive clitic morphemes can be identied in terms of their linear position in the auxiliary, without reference to their case features (Laka 1993a, Albizu and Eguren 2000). Below, we argue that this is the case, and that this gives rise to positional neutralization, which in turn provides evidence for our claim made in Subsection 2.2 that specicity in the contextual restriction in vocabulary entries is privileged over their MFS in determining competition for Vocabulary Insertion. The phenomenon of linearization-dependent realization of clitics is not unique to Basque. For example, subject proclitics and enclitics differ in form in some Northern Italian languages: (18) a. ICL . SBJ.3. PL
magna. eat.PRS .3. PL
b.
They eat. Magne -li? eat.PRS .3. PL -CL . SBJ .3. PL Do they eat? 0 0/ bu"vi drink.PRS .2. PL You(Pl) drink. bu"vi: -v? drink.PRS .2. PL -CL . SBJ.2. PL
CL . SBJ.2. PL -
(Paduan, Cardinaletti and Repetti 2008:535)
(19)
a.
b.
107
Table 3.1: Basque pronominal clitics

Absolutive Lek Ond Zam nnngggssss-. . . -e s-. . . -e s-. . . -e Lek: Ergative Lek Ond Zam -t/-ra -t/-a -t/-da -gu -gu -u -su -su -su -su-e -su-e -su-e -0/-o / -0 / -0/-o / -0-e/-o-e -0-e -0-e/-o-e / / / Lekeitio; Ond: Ondarru; Zam: Dative Ond -t -ku -tzu -tzu-e -ko/-tz -ko-e/-tz-e
1Sg 1Pl 2Sg 2Pl 3Sg 3Pl
Lek -t/-ra -ku -tzu -tzu-e -ko/-tz -ko-e/-tz-e Zamudio
Zam -t -ku -tzu -tzu-e -ko/-tz -ko-e/-tz-e
Do you(Pl) drink?
(Donceto, Cardinaletti and Repetti 2008:524)
In these languages, subject clitics precede the nite verb in noninterrogative sentences, but follow it in questions. As seen in these examples, this often correlates with a difference in the form of the clitic (see Poletto 2000:5155, Cardinaletti and Repetti 2006 and references cited there). The same is true for third person clitics in some varieties of Valencian Catalan (Todol 1992):6 (20) a. Troba -lo. nd.IMPR .2. SG -CL . ACC .3. SG . M Find it. El duc. CL . ACC .3. SG . M carry.PRS .1. SG I carry it.
(Valencian Catalan, Todol 1992:142)
b.
(Valencian Catalan, Todol 1992:144)
Todol provides similar data for dative clitics, in addition to the accusative examples above. Our proposal is that this is also true in Basque clitics: their form depends to some extent on their position in the auxiliary. The forms of these clitics in the dialects of Lekeitio, Ondarru and Zamudio appear in Table 3.1 (see also the full verbal paradigms in the Appendix).7 As shown in that Table, clitics have similar forms across the three dialects, with some minor differences. The vocabulary entries that realize these clitics are the following:8 (21) Vocabulary entries for second person clitics a. tzu [+Peripheral, +Motion, +Participant, Author] b. su [Peripheral, +Motion, +Participant, Author] c. s [+Participant, Author]/ T
Dat Erg Abs
Cardinaletti and Repetti 2006 and Todol 1992 argue that most of the surface differences between proclitics and enclitics in the varieties they study are due to phonological rule. However, both also admit that some of the differences are not phonological. The forms given above illustrate this second type of difference. For instance, although the o and e found in clitics in most Valencian varieties are due to phonologically motivated epenthesis, this cannot be the case in the varieties with troba-lo (20a) (Todol 1992:142143). 7 The cells corresponding to third person absolutive clitics are empty, since Basque has no clitics with these features. See Subsection 3.4. 8 See also Sections 56 in Chapter 4 for several clitic Impoverishment rules not discussed here.
6 Both
108 (22)
Chapter 3. The Morphophonology of Basque Finite Auxiliaries Vocabulary entries for rst plural clitics a. ku [+Peripheral, +Motion, +Participant, +Author] b. gugNNN
Lekeitio/Ondarru NNN N' o7 [Peripheral, ooo Zamudio o ooo w
Dat
+Motion, +Part, +Author] T [+M] [+M] [+M]
Erg Abs Dat/Erg Erg
c. (23)
u g [+Participant, +Author]/
Vocabulary entries for rst singular clitics 4 a. iii[+Motion, +Author, +Singular]/ da

Lekeitio iiiii ot / jUUUU Ondarru [Periph, U ZamudioUU U *
+Motion, +Author, +Sing]/
b. c. (24)
[Periph, +Motion, +Author, +Sing]/ [+Periph, +Motion, Part, Author, +Sing] t [+Motion, +Author, +Singular] T n [+Author, +Singular]/
Erg Dat/Erg Abs Dat Dat Erg
Vocabulary entries for third person clitics a. tz [+Peripheral, +Motion, Part, Author]/ [+Have] b. ko [+Peripheral, +Motion, Participant, Author] c. o [Peripheral, +Motion, Participant, Author]/ [+Periph, +Motion, Part, Author, +Singular] (missing in Ondarru)
Consider rst the entries for second person clitics (21). The exponents -tzu (21a) and -su (21b) are specied for case features, and accordingly realize dative and ergative clitics, respectively. The following example illustrates ergative enclitic -su: (25) Peskeu-en bat-0 ya-n / d -o -su ela? sh-GEN a-ABS eat-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .2. SG or You ate some type of sh, right?
On the other hand, s- (21c) is not specied for case, but its contextual restriction T identies it as the realization of an absolutive clitic. The fact that the entry for s- (and entries for absolutive clitics in general) is underspecied for case but contains a contextual restriction richer in terms of category than other second person entries predicts the positional neutralization facts alluded to in Subsection 2.2. Although ergative clitics are typically realized as enclitics following T, as in (25), they undergo Ergative Metathesis to a position left-adjacent to T under certain conditions discussed in Chapter 5. This is illustrated in the following example: (26) Len ark-atan urun-e euki-te s -endu -n. before chest-IN . PL our-ABS . SG have-IMP CL . E .2. SG -PST.3. SG -CPST You used to keep our in the chests. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:78)
Due to Ergative Metathesis, the second singular ergative clitic precedes T in this example. Both -su (21b) and s- (21c) are eligible for insertion in this morpheme. The former is specied as
109
Table 3.2: Positional neutralization in metathesized ergative clitics (Past tense auxiliaries with third singular agreement and no dative clitic) First singular n-eu-n First plural g-endu-n Second singular s-endu-n Second plural s-endu-e-n
ergative, and thus has a richer MFS than the latter, which is unspecied for case. On the other hand, the contextual restriction on s- is T, which is richer in terms of category than the one for -su (which is null). Our theory of Vocabulary Insertion correctly picks s-, since under this proposal, category-specicity is privileged over specicity for other features. Thus, when leftadjacent to T, the contrast between ergative and absolutive clitics is neutralized, as predicted by our implementation of Vocabulary Insertion. Other examples of auxiliaries with metathesized ergative clitics illustrating this case of positional neutralization are given in Table 3.2 (see Tables 68 in the Appendix for full paradigms).9 The vocabulary entries for rst person plural are organized in a similar way: g- (22c) is leftadjacent to T (absolutive, or ergative in cases of metathesis, as shown in Table 3.2), -ku (22a) is dative, and -(g)u (22b) is ergative. Note that these entries are not specied for number, which appears to make them compatible with rst singular clitics. The following Impoverishment rule prevents this: (27) First Singular Clitic Impoverishment a. SD: a clitic Cl specied as [+Participant, +Author, +Singular] b. SC: Cl [+Participant, +Singular]
This rule deletes [+Participant] in rst singular clitics, and thus prevents insertion of rst plural entries (22). Further evidence for the need for this Impoverishment rule in Biscayan Basque is given in Subsections 4.24.3 below and in Sections 56 in Chapter 4, where it is shown that auxilairies with rst singular clitics have several properties that set them apart from auxiliaries with other participant clitics. The vocabulary entries for rst singular clitics display a more complex pattern of allomorphy. As in previous cases, n- (23c) is inserted when the clitic is left-adjacent to T, so it is the exponent of both absolutive and metathesized clitics (Table 3.2). Unlike related entries seen above, -t (23b) is underspecied for case and thus compatible with either dative or ergative clitics. However, it is blocked by -da (23a) before a complementizer agreement morpheme specied as [+M] (Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 2). The restrictions imposed on these entries are summarized in Table 3.3, which provides a full description of the different forms of rst singular clitics in the three varieties.10
can also affect dative clitics in dialects other than the ones studied in detail here. They also display positional neutralization, as expected. Relevant examples are given Section 6 in Chapter 5. 10 Note that there is some variation in the distribution of -da, as reected in (23a) and shown in Table 3.3. The entry for Zamudio is the most restrictive, since it is only compatible with a clitic that is right-adjacent to a third singular dative clitic. This abstracts away from some variation reported in Gaminde 2000:371376 (our main source for this variety): some speakers seem to have a wider distribution for -da, in ways that are not completely clear to us. We have abstracted away from this variation and only report data from this source that are compatible with (23a). Due to the incomplete past tense monotransitive paradigm provided in Gaminde 2000:373374, we have taken some forms in
9 Metathesis
110
Table 3.3: First singular clitic exponents Ergative Dative Absolutive -da before [+M] in Lek/Ond -da before [+M] in Lek n-da between 3.Sg dative clitic and [+M] in Zam -t elsewhere -t elsewhere As discussed in Subsection 4.2 in Chapter 2, the case features in rst person dative clitics are changed to absolutive in some contexts in Lekeitio. As a result, these clitics are linearized to the left of T and are realized as n- (singular) and g- (plural). Note that this is not a case of positional neutralization, since the case on the clitic doubling the dative argument is actually absolutive at the point of VI.11 There is a certain amount of allomorphy in third person clitics (24) as well. Allomorph -tz (24a) of the dative clitic is restricted to contexts where it is right-adjacent to a T node specied as [+Have], which, as shown in Subsection 4.1 below, is inserted in this node in the context of an ergative clitic. Thus, default third person dative -ko (24b) is restricted to auxiliaries without an ergative clitic. Allomorphy in third ergative clitics is sensitive to the features of a preceding dative clitic: singular is -o (24c) if an adjacent dative clitic is third singular in Lekeitio and Zamudio. Elsewhere, third ergative is realized as 0 (the universal default). Note that there are no entries for / absolutive clitics, for reasons discussed in Subsection 3.4. 3.3.3 Plural Fission As shown in Table 3.1, all second and third plural clitics contain the exponent -e. For instance, the second plural dative clitic is -tzu-e (as opposed to singular -tzu), and the third plural ergative clitic is -0-e/-o-e (as opposed to singular -0/-o). Basque is not unique in having a clitic dedicated / / to realizing number features (e.g. see Noyer 2001 for an extensive analysis of the Nunggubuyu nonsingular clitic wa). We propose that in Basque, the appearance of the clitic -e along with other clitics is the result of a Fission rule that applies in the Exponence Conversion module, the earliest stage of Spellout, devoted to setting up postsyntactic positions of exponence. Within the spirit of Crossmodular Structural Parallelism, whereby operations across distinct modules of grammar employ identical computational mechanisms as far as possible, we model morphological Fission on the basis of the formalism proposed in Calabrese 1998 for a parallel operation in phonology (see also Calabrese 2005). As shown by this author, Fission of a phonological segment with two features F1 and F2 results in these two features being distributed in two separate output segments which are otherwise featurally identical with the input segment. Consider, for instance, the process of Metaphony in Arpino, a Southern Italian variety (Calabrese 1998:1727). As in other varieties in this language, stressed mid vowels are raised to high in certain morphological environments. For instance, the plural of [ms@] month is [m e s@], and the plural of [fjr@] o
Table 6 from de Yrizar 1992:vol. 1, 595, 617620, including some with a rst singular ergative clitic whose form is not consistent with our description in Table 3.3. These forms seem to be from speakers with the wider distribution for -da noted above. 11 This contrasts with other cases of bona de metathesized dative clitics that do illustrate positional neutralization. See Section 6 in Chapter 5.
111
ower is [fjr@]. As shown by these examples, the effect of Metaphony in [+ATR] (tense) vowels u is straightforward: [e, o] become [i, u], respectively. However, the effect is very different for the lax mid vowels [E, O], where Metaphony results in diphthongization: the plural of [vrm@] worm E is [vjrm@], and the plural of [frt@] strong is [fw rt@]. Calabrese accounts for the latter case e O o in terms of the same Metaphony rule, which results in a high lax vowel. Since the combinations of the features [+high, ATR] in the same segment is banned (there are no high lax vowels in this language), a Fission repair is enacted that splits the conicting features into two separate segments, resulting in the diphthongs [iE] and [uO]: the rst segment is [+high], and the second is [ATR].12 Crucially, the two output segments share all other features of the input vowel, namely [consontantal, round, back, low]. We propose that morphological Fission has the exact same effect: it distributes two features from the input morpheme into separate output morphemes that share all other features of the input morpheme.13 This can be formalized as follows: (28) Morphological Fission a. The Structural Description of a (morphological) Fission rule has three terms: a category C, a feature F1 , and a feature F2 . b. The Structural Change splits a morpheme of category C containing F1 and F2 as follows: F1 F2 F1 F2 Fn Fn Fn . . . . . . . . . Fm Fm Fm
In Basque clitics, Plural Fission splits the features [Author] and [Singular] in second and third person plural clitics: (29) Plural Fission: Clitic, [Author], [Singular].
Like other rules directly mapping syntactic structures to the postsyntactic component, Plural Fission applies in the Exponence conversion module. Given this Structural Description, the output is the following: (30) Structural Change in Plural Fission:
[ATR] status of the second vowel in the diphthong on the surface is in fact unclear. Under the assumption that it is in fact [+ATR], as reported above, Calabrese 1998:6263 hypothesizes that the change from [ATR] is the result of other processes. 13 In Calabreses (1998, 2005) theory, Fission is one of several operations used in repairing banned feature combinations (e.g. *[+high, ATR]). It is not clear to us whether morphological Fission has the same motivation. In particular, although Basque Plural Fission splits the features [Author, Singular] into two separate nodes (see below), we know of no evidence that this is a marked feature combination in Basque. Although we believe that Calabreses formalization of Fission is correct for morphology, whether the process has the same type of motivation is a question that we leave for future research.
12 The
112 D Author Singular Peripheral Motion Participant
D Author Peripheral Motion Participant
D Singular Peripheral Motion Participant
As the reader can verify, Vocabulary Insertion assigns the correct exponents to the leftmost output morpheme given the entries proposed in the previous Subsection. The rightmost morpheme is realized by -e: (31) Vocabulary entry for plural clitics e [Singular]
Since Plural Fission specically targets the person feature [Author], only second and third person clitics are affected, and rst plural clitics remain unssioned.14 In our formalization of Fission, features other than those referred to in the Structural Description are duplicated in the output morphemes. That these features are needed in the leftmost morpheme is obvious, as they condition insertion of exponents in this node. This is not so evident in the rightmost morpheme, which is always realized as -e in Biscayan. Evidence that these features are present in the rightmost output morpheme comes from other dialects, where its form is -te or -e depending on person and number features (in addition to number). For instance, in Batua (the standard dialect), plural dative is -e, plural absolutive is -te, and plural ergative is -e in the second person and -te in the third person. A particularly clear instance of this is found in Berastegi, a Gipuscoan dialect:15 (32) Second plural absolutive clitics in Berastegi z -ea -te z -aittuz -te -0 / CL . A .2 -PRS .2. SG -CL . A . PL CL . A .2 -PRS .2. SG -CL . A . PL -CL . E .3. SG Second plural dative and ergative clitics in Berastegi z -a -zu -e d -i -zu -e -0 / L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .2 -CL . D . PL L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .2 -CL . D . PL -CL . E .3. SG d -e -zu -e d -i -o -zu -e L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .2 -CL . E . PL L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .2 -CL . E . PL
(33)
some varieties of the Western subdialect of Biscayan, dative and ergative rst plural clitics do surface with a ssioned plural exponent, as -ku-e and -u-e, respectively (alternating with -ku/-u in most cases). This phenomenon is found in several towns in all three subvarieties of the Plentzia variety (de Yrizar 1992:vol. 1, 541673; Zamudio belongs to this variety, but it consistently lacks Fission in the rst plural). We assume that a separate rule, or a suitable modication of (29), results in Fission in these clitics. These varieties seem to reveal ongoing change towards a system with a syntactic person/number split, and not due to postsyntactic Fission, which is subject to the person feature restrictions mentioned above. Under such a system, we would expect person and number to be systematically realized as separate exponents in clitics. The fact that rst plural does not trigger ssion in all clitics even in these varieties shows that, as far as published data is concerned, no Biscayan variety has reached this point. 15 The auxiliaries in the examples below are given in their surface forms. The data are from de Yrizar 1991:vol. 1, 226228 (whose source is eld work notes by Resurreccin Mara de Azkue in the early 20th century), where Berastegi (referred to as Berstegui) is classied as belonging to the Southern subvariety of the Tolosa variety of the Guipuscoan dialect.
14 In
Section 3.3 Clitic realization in the morphophonology (34) Third plural clitics in Berastegi / z -ai -/ 0 -e L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3 -CL . D . PL z / -aittu -/ 0 -e CL . A .2. SG -PRS .2. SG -CL . E .3 -CL . E . PL
113
/ d -i -/ 0 -e -zu L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3 -CL . D . PL -CL . E .2. SG / d -i -zu -/ 0 -e L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .2. SG -CL . E .3 -CL . E . PL
As illustrated by these auxiliaries, the form of rightmost exponent of plural clitics is -te in the second absolutive, and -e elsewhere.16 Given our formalization of Fission, this generalization is rather easily implemented by restricting -te to certain case and person features present in the morpheme after Fission: (35) Berastegi: vocabulary entries for plural clitics a. te [Peripheral, Motion, +Participant, Singular] b. e [Singular]
2Abs
Thus, cross-dialectal data provide support for the idea that the two morphemes that are the output of Fission share most of the features present in the input morpheme. As shown above, the result of ssion is two sister terminal nodes occpying the same position as the input morpheme, which entails that the two nodes are adjacent on the surface. As shown in Table 3.1, plural -e surfaces right-adjacent to the clitic it is split from in dative and ergative clitics, but not in absolutive clitics: (36) Bixitze bi-0 / ego-n s -intz -e -n (>sintzien) suo-k. life two-ABS be-PRF CL . A .2 -PST.2. PL -CL . A . PL -CPST you(Pl)-ABS You(Pl) were there for a very long time. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:70)
In fact, there is a great deal of dialectal variation in the placement of -e, even in the case of dative and ergative clitics. We provide an explicit account of the placement of this plural clitic exponent in Section 3 in Chapter 5. 3.3.4 On the absence of third person absolutive clitics The list of third person clitic vocabulary entries in (24) does not contain entries compatible with third person absolutive clitics. This is expected, since as shown in Subsection 2.1 in Chapter 2, Basque has no third person absolutive clitics. One of the main pieces of evidence that this claim is correct is the fact that the presence of a third plural absolutive argument does not trigger the insertion of the plural -e: (37)
16
Pitian pitian ei-ten d -o -su -s often-IN . SG often-IN . SG do-IMP L -PRS .3. PL -CL . E .2. SG -3. PL
A particularly common pattern in the Guipuzcoan dialect further restricts -te to intransitive auxiliaries (e.g. Andoain; referred to as Andoan in de Yrizar 1992:vol. 1, 204206). In other Guipuscoan varieties, -te is the default form, with -e restricted to third person dative in ditransitives (e.g. Astigarraga in de Yrizar 1991:vol. 1, 2426) or intransitives (e.g. Donostia; San Sebastin in de Yrizar 1991:vol. 1, 6971). This does not exhaust dialectal variation in the realization of plural clitics in Guipuscoan, but this sample provides a good illustration of this variation, as well as the systematic dependence of the form of the clitic on case and person features.
114
Chapter 3. The Morphophonology of Basque Finite Auxiliaries orr-ek geus-ek. that-ABS . PL thing-ABS . PL You do those things often.
On the other hand, a second plural absolutive argument is always doubled by a proclitic from which plural -e is split off, as in (36) above. If a clitic doubling the third plural absolutive argument were present in (37), we would also expect Plural Fission to apply in this auxiliary, with subsequent insertion of plural enclitic -e, contrary to fact. The proposal that there are no third person proclitics is additionally supported by the analysis it affords for PCC effects in Basque (Subsection 3.1 in Chapter 2), and from the phenomenon of Ergative Metathesis, extensively discussed in Chapter 5. Therefore, in sentences with a third person absolutive argument, as well as those without an absolutive argument (Subsection 2.2 in Chapter 2), no clitic is adjoined to the left of T. Due to a linearization-based condition on T proposed in Chapter 5, other elements ll the rst position in the auxiliary in these cases. This can be a metathesized clitic or L, an epenthetic morpheme inserted in this position to satisfy the condition mentioned above. The realization of this morpheme is subject to dialectal variation, and it has several allomorphs that are sensitive to features in other morphemes in the auxiliary. The following are illustrative examples from Lekeitio: (38) a. b. c. d. d -a L -PRS .3. SG s -a -n L -PST.3. SG -CPST dx -a -tzu -n L -PST.3. SG -CL . D .2. SG -CPST 0 -eu / -tzu -gu -n L -PST.3. SG -CL . D .2. SG -CL . E .1. PL -CPST
As can be seen in these examples, the form of L is sensitive to tense and to the presence of nonadjacent dative and ergative clitics in the auxiliary. This pattern of allomorphy is not characteristic of pronominal clitics: none of the clitic entries in (21)(24) are sensitive to features of T. This is thus evidence that the forms in (38) are not the realization of a third person absolutive clitic. A complete account of the L morpheme, including its exponence, is provided in Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 5. 3.3.5 On plural morphology in Basque nite verbs Plural number in absolutive, dative, and ergative arguments is expressed in different ways in the Basque auxiliaries. In this Subsection, we compare the distribution of two exponents that can descriptively be labeled as plural markers: clitic plural -e and the exponent -s in complementizer agreement, analyzed in the framework developed here in Subsection 3.3 in the present Chapter and in Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 2, respectively. Although both can be thought of descriptively as plural markers, they display crucially divergent behavior, a fact that follows from our analysis. Both exponents are often grouped together under a category variously called pluralizer, plurality marker, or plural agreement; see, among others, Laka 1993a:26, 3537, Trask 1997:221
115
223, Hualde 2003b:210211, and Rezac 2003:166167.17 Although these labels give a good rst approximation to the morphology of these exponents, there are signicant differences in their distribution, as acknowledged in the existing literature on the topic, including the works cited above. For instance, Rezac (2003:167), for whom -s is plural absolutive agreement and -e (-te in some contexts in some varieties not studied here) is plural ergative (and presumably also dative) agreement, notes that the ergative plural (t)e was recruited to distinguish second-person plural both in the ergative, where (t)e also marks third-person plural, and in the absolutive, where it does not because the absolutive always had its own pluralizer. I leave this quirk, which I assume is morphological, aside. Intuitively, the absolutive plural morpheme already marks the semantic plurality of third-person plural and blocks (t)e, but not of secondperson plural because it is also used for the polite second-person singular form. Under similar assumptions, Trask (1997) states that the absolutive pluralizers are found in all three persons, while the ergative pluralizer is entirely conned to the third person (222), and that Nothing whatever is known of the origin of these pluralizers, but the contrast between absolutive -z and ergative *-de is quite striking. (223)18 The distribution of both exponents is shown in Table 3.4, where each cell is to be understood as indicating whether a given exponent (the label of the row) appears (indicated with ) or does not appear (indicated with *) in a nite auxiliary heading a sentence containing an argument of the given argument type (the label of the column).19 A rst indication that the two exponents do not belong to the same category is the fact that they are not in complementary distribution: both surface in the context of a second plural absolutive argument. The fact that the overlap in distribution is limited to this particular case also shows that this is not a straightforward case of multiple exponence where the same category is realized twice in the same auxiliary. Furthermore, two facts about their distribution indicate that labels such as plural maker should be applied with caution to these exponents: -e does not surface in the context of rst plural arguments, and -s surfaces in the context of a second singular argument. The differences between these two exponents boil down to the following four statements: (39) Differences between clitic -e and complementizer agreement -s
is transcribed as -z in these works, following Standard Basque orthography. In dialects that maintain the s/z distinction, -z is indeed the equivalent of -s in the Biscayan dialects discussed here, where this phonemic distinction has been lost (Subsection 3.2 in Chapter 1). Another difference between Biscayan and others that should be taken into account in reading those works is that in non-Biscayan varieties, the plural clitic is -te instead of -e in some environments. 18 This work is about the history of Basque. The exponent *-de is a posited diachronic origin for -e (and -te in some varieties), and -z is the source of modern-day Biscayan -s. Due to the particular history of second plural morphology (Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 2), the second plural had a different realization in earlier stages of the language, and Trask accordingly glosses over the fact that his ergative pluralizer (our plural clitic exponent -e) does occur with second person plural in Modern Basque. 19 There are exceptions for both exponents. The exceptions to the distribution of -s are fairly idiosyncratic (Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 2). With respect to -e, it is absent in some auxiliaries due to Impoverishment, as discussed in Section 6 in Chapter 4, and it can be deleted by a phonological rule (see discussion surrounding example (164) in Subsection 6.2). The placement of the two exponents within the auxiliary is also different. While -s is left-adjacent to C, the placement of -e is more variable (Section 3 in Chapter 5). These details do not affect the argument presented here.
17 The exponent -s
116
Table 3.4: Distribution of clitic -e and complementizer agreement -s -s -e 3Pl.Abs 2Pl.Abs 1Pl.Abs 2Sg.Abs 2/3Pl.Dat 1Pl.Dat 2Sg.Dat 2/3Pl.Erg 1Pl.Erg 2Sg.Erg * * * * * * * * * * * * * a. b. c. d. -s surfaces with rst plural, -e does not. -s surfaces with second singular, -e does not. -s surfaces only with absolutive, -e with absolutive, dative, and ergative. -s surfaces with third plural absolutive, -e does not.
These facts follow from our analysis, which in the case of -e and -s can be summarized as follows (see Subsection 3.3 in the present Chapter and Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 2 for details): (40) (41) Analysis of -e -e is the realization of a plural morpheme ssioned from a clitic. Analysis of -s -s is the realization of [+M] in complementizer agreement. Complementizer agreement is a node adjoined to C which copies -features from T and is subject to M-feature Insertion.
The absence of -e in the rst plural (39a) is accounted for in Subsection 3.3 above: Fission is restricted to [Author] clitics. The difference in (39b) has to do with the fact that while -e does realize plural number, -s realizes the feature [+M]. This feature is specic to complementizer agreement, and replaces the number feature in both plural and second singular feature bundles. This is a very idiosyncratic fact about agreement in Basque, and our analysis has its roots in rmly established assumptions about the diachrony and synchrony of number morphology in this language (see Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 3). Complementizer agreement copies its -features from T. This explains the restriction to absolutive arguments in (39c), since T typically has absolutive agreement features.20 The fact that agreement in C systematically tracks agreement in T provides independent justication for this part of the analysis (Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 2). The entry for -e, on the other hand, is not specied for case, and is thus compatible with clitics with any case. Finally, in our view, the most telling difference between the two exponents is (39d), since it follows directly from our proposal that -e is a clitic exponent and -s realizes agreement. Since Basque has no third person absolutive clitics, -e cannot double a third plural absolutive argument. Even though agreement by T is typically with clitics doubling arguments, this is not necessarily the case. In particular, in the absence of clitics doubling third person absolutive arguments, T (and therefore C) agrees directly with the argument (Subsection 4.1 in Chapter 2). The fact that the complex distributional properties of both exponents follow from our proposals in a straightforward way provides an argument for our analysis of Basque nite auxiliaries. The
are two exceptions to this. First, Dative Impoverishment in Lekeitio results in T surfacing with agreement with a dative argument. In that case, -s does realize a plural feature originating in dative argument (Subsection 4.4). The second exception has to do with Absolutive Promotion, which can result in a surface absolutive argument being doubled by an ergative clitic. As a consequence, neither T nor complementizer agreement agree with it (Subsection 3.2 in Chapter 2). Both these exceptions thus follow from our analysis as well.
20 There
Section 3.4 The realization of agreement on T
117
reader more familiar with Basque verbal morphology will notice that we have so far systematically ignored other pieces in auxiliaries that are traditionally considered as plural exponents (e.g. -it- in monotransitives). These are the topic of Section 5 below, where we argue that they are in fact not atomic exponents, but substrings of different exponents of T whose distribution depends both on person and number. 3.3.6 Summary To conclude, the claim that the initial absolutive marker, as well as the dative and ergative markers are pronominal clitics provides an elegant account of their morphophonological properties, including case- and linear order-based allomorphy and positional neutralization, the distribution of the plural exponent -e, and the consequences that the absence of third person absolutive clitics has on the surface realization of the auxiliary. 3.4 The realization of agreement on T We now turn to the realization of T. The realization of this node is subject to a great deal of contextual allomorphy, and it is a main source of dialectal variation in Basque.21 Our analysis of the exponence of this node is accordingly more complex than our account of clitics in the previous Section. Despite this complexity, we argue that the three Biscayan varieties discussed here share a common core of rules and vocabulary entries in the postsyntactic component, and that the form of T in these varieties is underlyingly more similar than suggested by the surface form of auxiliaries. This analysis of variation is completed in Section 6 with an account of the phonological processes that give rise to many of the differences between the dialects. As shown in Section 4 in Chapter 2 the root of the Basque auxiliary is a single terminal node of category T specied for both tense and agreement features. In Subsection 4.1 we argue that T acquires two other features postsyntactically, [Have] and [Appl], whose value depends on the presence of an ergative or a dative clitic, respectively, in the auxiliary. These feature provide a basic split of auxiliary root exponents into intransitives and transitives on the one hand, and applicatives and nonapplicatives on the other. This is one of the main sources of allomorphic variation in the realization of T. Subsection 4.2 provides detailed analysis and discussion of the realization of T in Lekeitio, and in 4.3 we give a full account of VI in T in Ondarru and Zamudio and discuss the main differences with respect to Lekeitio. The analysis in these two Subsections also includes some Impoverishment rules that have important effects in the realization of T in the three dialects. In most cases, the -features in T reect agreement with an absolutive argument, but as discussed in Subsection 4.2, there are certain cases in which T also has -features from the dative argument. Their realization is dealt with in Subsection 4.4. 3.4.1 Allomorphy in the context of ergative and dative clitics Due to its syntactic properties, the form of T is highly dependent on the feature [Past] and the -features of the absolutive argument. In addition, T shows a variety of allomorphs depending on the presence or absence of ergative and dative clitics in the auxiliary. These alternations, indirectly
fact, the realization of transitive T is traditionally used as one of the main sources for the classication of Basque varieties into major dialectal areas (Hualde 2003b:222).
21 In
118
conditioned by Argument Structure of the verb, are due to postsyntactic feature insertion rules applying in the postsyntactic Morphological Concord Module. The rst one is sensitive to the presence of an ergative clitic: (42) Have-Insertion Insert the feature [+Have] in T in the context of an ergative clitic. Insert [Have] otherwise.
The fact that the form of T in the auxiliary depends on the presence/absence of an ergative clitic might lead to the hypothesis this is the same phenomenon as the have/be alternation in many Romance and Germanic languages. However, Arregi 2004 presents thorough argumentation that the alternation in Basque is based on the presence/absence of an ergative clitic on the auxiliary, and not on the ergative DP argument (i.e. transitive/intransitive syntax). That this is the case can be best detected when ergative cliticization and ergative arguments part ways (see also Albizu and Eguren 2000). One demonstration that [+Have] allomorphy depends on the presence of an ergative clitic comes from allocutive auxiliary forms. In many dialects of Basque, a distinction is made between second singular formal and colloquial forms. In the three dialects discussed here, the distinction has been neutralized, especially in younger speakers, in favor of formal forms (Subsection 4.5 in Chapter 1). However, Gaminde (2000) has some Zamudio colloquial forms, including allocutive ones (382385). Allocutive nite forms in Basque are unique in that they contain a second person clitic that agrees with the addressee when the latter is someone who would be addressed using colloquial forms.22 Importantly, this clitic does not crossreference any DP in the clause, hence the name allocutive. Of interest for the present discussion is the particular form that allocutive clitics have. In an intransitive auxiliary with only an absolutive clitic, the allocutive clitic is realized as an enclitic. (44) is the allocutive counterpart of (43): (43) Yoa-ngo n -as. go-FUT CL . A .1. SG - PRS .1. SG Ill go. Yoa-ngo n -o -k. go-FUT CL . A .1. SG - PRS .1. SG -CL . ALL .2. SG . COLL . M Ill go.
(44)
Both sentences have the same syntax and meaning: they are syntactically intransitive, in the sense that they contain a single absolutive argument. The only difference is that (44) is used whenever addressing a male friend, and (43) is more formal. The allocutive auxiliary in (44) contains the additional allocutive enclitic -k, which does not crossreference any DP in the sentence.23 Furthermore, this allocutive clitic has the same form and occupies the same position as an ergative clitic.
This brief description is sufcient for our purposes. A fuller discussion of allocutive clitics is in Subsection 6.3 in Chapter 5. See Oyharabal 1993, Alberdi 1995, and Hualde 2003b:242246 for a more complete description, with some indication of dialectal variation. 23 Oyharabal (1993) provides several arguments that the presence of an allocutive clitic in the auxiliary does not signal the presence of an additional argument in the sentence. For instance, this alleged argument cannot bind anaphors. Oyharabal interprets these arguments as showing that the clitic crossreferences a pro in a high A -position.
22
119
Crucially for the discussion of the distribution of [Have] is the fact that T (the root) takes a different form in both examples above. While in both, T agrees with the rst singular absolutive argument, T in the nonallocutive auxiliary (43) is intransitive -as-, as expected, but T in the allocutive auxiliary (44) is transitive -o- (see Subsection 4.3 for the relevant vocabulary entries). Even though the sentence lacks transitive syntax and an ergative argument, the syntactically unmotivated presence of a clitic with the form and position of an ergative clitic triggers the insertion of transitive T. Thus, (44) shows that ergative cliticization, and not an ergative argument, triggers the presence of transitive T. Thus, the transitivity alternation in the realization of T in Basque is determined by the presence of an ergative enclitic in the auxiliary that does not necessarily signal the presence of an ergative argument, and is thus is a postsyntactic determination of allomorphy. Finite auxiliaries are also subject to allomorphy that is sensitive to the presence of a dative clitic, due to another rule that applies in the Morphological Concord Module: (45) Appl-Insertion Insert the feature [+Appl] in T the context of a dative clitic. Insert [Appl] otherwise.
The two features discussed in this Subsection thus crossclassify nite roots into four categories that are indirectly related to Argument Structure: ditransitive [+Have, Appl], monotransitive [+Have, Appl], applicative intransitive [Have, +Appl], and (simple) intransitive [Appl, Have]. We turn to an exhaustive listing of the interaction between tense, [Have, Appl], and agreement in determining the exponence of T in Lekeitio, followed by a summary of the main differences found between this variety and Ondarru and Zamudio. 3.4.2 Lekeitio We begin with the Impoverishment rules and the vocabulary entries in the variety of Lekeitio in this Subsection, followed by analyses of Ondarru and Zamudio in the next Subsection. As discussed below, there are many similarities in the realization of T in the three varieties. In particular, there is a common core set of Impoverishment rules and vocabulary entries in the three varieties. Two Impoverishment rules are present in the three varieties (and many others in the Biscayan dialect): First Singular Clitic Impoverishment applies to clitics, but it has a signicant effect on the realization of T. It deletes the [+Participant] feature from rst person singular clitics, and several Impoverishment rules and vocabulary entries affecting T are restricted to apply in contexts containing clitics with this feature. For further discussion of this rule and other effects it has in auxiliaries, see Sections 56 in Chapter 4. First Singular T Impoverishment changes the marked feature set [+Participant, +Author] to unmarked [Participant, Author] in rst person singular transitive T in the present tense. The net result is that rst singular agreement has the same realization as third person in present transitive T. This rule has its most general form in Zamudio, but it is restricted to the context of a third person ergative clitic in Lekeitio and Ondarru. Additional dialect-particular rules account for certain differences between the dialects. The three varieties also share a common core set of vocabulary entries (with minor differences in their phonological form and morphosyntactic feature specication):
120
Table 3.5: Intransitive T in the absence of a dative clitic in Lekeitio

Absolutive First singular First plural Second singular Second plural Third singular Third plural Present as ara ara ara a ira Past itz ina ina ina a ira
Intransitive: -itz- (rst singular past), -ina/intz- (participant past), -ira/i- (third plural), and -a- (default). The similarities are greater between Lekeitio and Zamudio, which also share -as- (rst singular present) and -ara- (participant present). Transitive: -aitu- (participant present), -(o)itu- (third plural present), -au- (third present), -eu- (third person past), -endu- (third person past), and -o- (default). Lekeitio and Ondarru also share -a- (rst singular present). In fact, this is an exhaustive list of all vocabulary entries for T in Lekeitio. The other two varieties have additional entries, the greatest source of variation being due to the the addition of entries that are sensitive to the presence of a dative clitic in the auxiliary. For ease of exposition, we present rst the vocabulary entries for intransitive T (Table 3.5). They are distinguished from the entries for transitive T in their negative specication for the feature Have. The entries are the following: (46) Lekeitio: vocabulary entries for rst singular intransitive T a. itz [Have, Appl, +Past, +Participant, +Author, +Singular] b. as [Have, Appl, Past, +Participant, +Author, +Singular] Lekeitio: vocabulary entries for rst plural/second person intransitive T a. ina [Have, Appl, +Past, +Participant] b. ara [Have, Appl, Past, +Participant] Lekeitio: vocabulary entry for third plural intransitive T ira [Have, Appl, Participant, Author, Singular] Lekeitio: default vocabulary for intransitive T a [Have]
Past Present Past Present
(47)
(48) (49)
These vocabulary entries account for the forms of T in Table 3.5 in a straightforward way. Note that all entries except default -a- (49) are specied as [Appl]. This entails that they are compatible only with auxiliaries not containing dative clitics. The -feature-based distinctions in exponence are therefore neutralized in applicative intransitive auxiliaries, where -a- is the only entry that can be inserted in T (see Table 2 in the Appendix for relevant forms).24
Note that this is a case of default realization of agreement, not syntactic default agreement, discussed in Section 5 in Chapter 2. Unlike the cases discussed there, T agrees with an argument in this case, but the lack of specic vocabulary entries for this environment result in default realization.
24
121
Table 3.6: Monotransitive T in Lekeitio

(Present and past forms identical except where indicated) Absolutive 2 singular 2 plural aitu aitu aitu aitu X X X X aitu aitu aitu aitu
Ergative 1 singular 1 plural 2 singular 2 plural 3 singular 3 plural
1 singular X X a a au au
1 plural X X aitu aitu aitu aitu
3 sing prs/pst o/eu o/endu o/endu o/endu au/eu au/eu
3 pl prs/pst o/eu o/endu o/endu o/endu itu/eu au/eu
The realization of transitive T (see Table 3.6) is mediated by the Impoverishment rules in (50) (52) and the entries in (53)(56).25 (50) Lekeitio: First Singular Clitic Impoverishment a. SD: a clitic Cl specied as [+Participant, +Author, +Singular] b. SC: Cl [+Participant, +Singular] Lekeitio: Past Participant T Impoverishment a. SD: a T node specied as [+Past, +Participant] and an ergative clitic b. SC: T [Past, +Participant] Lekeitio: First Singular T Impoverishment a. SD: a T node specied as [Past, +Participant, +Author, +Singular] and an ergative clitic specied as [Participant] b. SC: T [Past, Participant, Author, +Singular] Lekeitio: vocabulary entries for participant transitive T in the present a. a [+Have, Past, +Participant, +Author, +Singular] b. aitu [+Have, Past, +Participant] First singular
(51)
(52)
(53)
(54)
Lekeitio: vocabulary entries for third person monotransitive T in the present a. itu [+Have, Past, Part, Author, Singular]/ [Ergative, Part, +Singular] b. au [+Have, Past, Participant, Author]/ [Ergative, Participant] Lekeitio: vocabulary entries for third person transitive T in the past a. endu [+Have, +Past, Participant, Author]/[Ergative, +Participant] b. eu [+Have, +Past, Participant, Author] Lekeitio: default vocabulary entry for transitive T o [+Have]
Pl
(55)
(56)
The Impoverishment rules apply in the order shown, as discussed below.

Impoverishment rules, we abbreviate Structural Description as SD and Structural Change as SC. In feature specications, case labels such as ergative are abbreviations for the corresponding case feature sets.
25 In
122
The entries in (54) assign the correct exponents (-itu- or -au-) to T in the third person in the present tense in the context of a third person ergative clitic, due to the contextual specications of these entries. In the context of other ergative clitics, default -o- (56) is inserted. In the past tense, third person T is realized as -endu- (55a) in the context of a participant ergative clitic. Default past tense -eu- (55b) is inserted instead of -endu- in the context of a third person ergative clitic. The latter is also the case when the ergative clitic is rst singular, since the [+Participant] feature in the latter is deleted by First Singular Clitic Impoverishment (50).26 This is illustrated by the auxiliary in the following example, whose derivation proceeds as in (58). (57) Lekitton n-ew-an-ian, Lekeitio-IN CL . A .1 SG-be.PST-N-IN Koldo-0 ikus-i n / -eu -n. (>neban) Koldo-ABS see-PRF CL . E .1. SG - PST.3. SG - CPST When I was in Lekeitio, I saw Koldo. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:194) a. b. c. d. e. Representation of ergative clitic and T: [+Past, Part, Author, +Singular] [Ergative, +Part, +Author, +Singular] Deletion of [+Participant] in clitic by First Singular Clitic Impoverishment (50): [+Past, Part, Author, +Singular] [Ergative, +Author, +Singular] Have and Appl-Insertion: [+Have, Appl, +Past, Part, Author, +Sing] [Ergative, +Author, +Sing] Ergative Metathesis: [Ergative, +Author, +Sing] [+Have, Appl, +Past, Part, Author, +Sing] Blocking of -endu- (55a) and insertion of -eu- (55b) in T: [Ergative, +Author, +Singular] -eu-
(58)
Note that the third person exponents in (54) and (55a) are all specied to be inserted in the context of ergative clitics with certain features, but the position of the ergative clitic is to the left of T in the past (55a) and to its right in (54). This is due to differences in the linearization of these morphemes in the present and the past. In both tenses, the ergative clitic is initially linearized to the right of T (see Subsection 3.1). However, in the past tense, the ergative clitic is displaced to the left of T by Ergative Metathesis, discussed in detail in Section 4 in Chapter 5. This is illustrated in the fourth step in (58). Although the realization of third person is subject to some allomorphy in monotransitives, this is not the case in ditransitives. This is due to contextual restrictions in the relevant entries. In the present tense, the third person entries in (54) can only be inserted when T is left-adjacent to a third person ergative clitic. Recall that morphemes in transitive auxiliaries are arranged in the following order: (59) (ClAbs ) T (ClDat ) ClErg AgrC C
T is left-adjacent to an ergative only if there is no dative clitic. Thus, the present tense third person entries in (54) are compatible only with auxiliaries without a dative clitic. The -feature-based distinctions in exponence (singular vs. plural) are therefore neutralized in ditransitive auxiliaries,
this rule seems ad hoc, it nds justication in the different effects it has in the verbal paradigms of all dialects studied here (see Subsection 4.3 in the present Chapter and Sections 56 in Chapter 4).
26 Although
123
where default -o- (56) is the only entry that can be inserted in T (see Tables 45 in the Appendix for relevant forms).27 As noted in Subsection 2.1, T and the ergative clitic are adjacent linearly, not structurally, which provides support to our proposal that the contextual restrictions in vocabulary entries are constrained by linear adjacency. Third person allomorphy is also restricted to monotransitives in the past tense, since -endu- (55a) is restricted to auxiliaries where a participant ergative clitic has undergone Ergative Metathesis and therefore precedes T. As shown in Subsection 4.1 in Chapter 5, participant ergative clitics do not undergo Metathesis in Lekeitio ditransitives. Thus, endu is blocked in the context of a third person or rst singular ergative clitic because the latter is not [+Participant],28 and also in the context of a participant ergative clitic, since the latter does not undergo Metathesis. The result is that third person is realized as -eu- (55b) in the past tense, due to the lack of contextual restrictions in this entry (see Tables 78 in the Appendix for relevant forms). Although -featural distinctions are neutralized in T in ditransitives, they are not in complementizer agreement (Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 2): a plural argument triggers insertion of -s in this morpheme, and a singular argument does not. Thus, the auxiliary as a whole is not syncretic for agreement features. The reader can check that this is the case in both present and past tense ditransitives in Tables 45 and 78 in the Appendix. When T is rst or second person, Past Participant T Impoverishment (51) ensures that the forms of past T are identical to the present. In both tenses, participant T is realized as -a- (53a) in the rst singular, and -aitu- (53b) otherwise. The exception is rst singular in the context of a third person ergative clitic, where later application of First Singular T Impoverishment (52) ensures that rst singular T has the same realization as third singular present T in this context (-au-, as shown above).29 The combined effect of both Impoverishment rules can be seen in the following example, where rst singular past tense T has the same realization as third singular present (not past) T: (60) Peru-k ikus-i n -au -0 / -n. (>naben) Peru-ERG see-PRF CL . A .1 SG -PRS .1 SG - CL . E .3. SG -CPST Peru saw me. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:127) a. b. c. d. e.
27 Exceptions
(61)
Representation of ergative clitic and T: [+Past, +Part, +Author, +Singular]T [Ergative, Part, Author, +Singular]Cl Past Participant T Impoverishment (51): [ Past, +Part, +Author, +Singular]T [Ergative, Part, Author, +Singular]Cl First Singular T Impoverishment (52): [Past, Part, Author, +Singular]T [Ergative, Part, Author, +Singular]Cl Have and Appl-Insertion: [+Have, Appl, Past, Part, Author, +Sing]T [Ergative, Part, Author, +Sing]Cl Blocking of -a- (53a) and -aitu- (53b), and insertion of -au- (54b): -au- [Ergative, Participant, Author, +Singular]Cl
to this pattern have to do with First Dative T Impoverishment (Subsection 4.2 in Chapter 2), one of whose effects is the realization of dative agreement features in T. Its effect on the realization of agreement are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.4. 28 As noted above, rst singular clitics are not [+Participant] due to First Singular Clitic Impoverishment (50). 29 The realization of rst singular as third singular as a result of Impoverishment is different from syntactic default agreement, which is the result of insertion of unmarked third singular features in the absence of a Goal for syntactic Agree (Section 5 in Chapter 2). In the present case, T does agree with a third person Goal, but Impoverishment results in realization as unmarked third singular.
124
In the following Subsection, we provide a formal analysis of the realization of T in Ondarru and Zamudio, and discuss the main differences with respect to Lekeitio. 3.4.3 Ondarru and Zamudio Intransitive T in Zamudio is very similar to Lekeitio, the only difference being the entry for rst plural and second person, which is -ina- (47a) in Lekeitio, while it is -intz- in Zamudio. The list of entries in Ondarru is signicantly different from the other two varieties: (62) Ondarru: vocabulary entries for participant intransitive T a. itz [Have, Appl, +Past, +Participant, +Author, +Singular] b. ina [Have, Appl, +Past, +Participant] c. as [Have, Appl, Past, +Participant] Ondarru: vocabulary entry for third plural intransitive T i [Have, Appl, Participant, Author, Singular] Ondarru: default vocabulary entry for intransitive T a [Have]
1.Sg Past Past Present
(63) (64)
Like Lekeitio and Zamudio, -itz- (62a) realizes rst singular T in the past in Ondarru, and -ina(62b) (-intz- in Zamudio) realizes participant T in the same tense. On the other hand, Lekeitio and Zamudio present tense -ara- (47b) is absent from Ondarru, where its function is taken over by -as(62c), which has a more general entry in this variety. The other difference between Ondarru and the other two dialects is in the entry for third plural: -i- (63) in the former, and -ira- (48) in the latter. Greater differences among the three varieties surface in the realization of transitive T. The Impoverishment rules and vocabulary entries in Ondarru are the following: (65) Ondarru: First Singular Clitic Impoverishment a. SD: a clitic Cl specied as [+Participant, +Author, +Singular] b. SC: Cl [+Participant, +Singular] Ondarru: First Singular T Impoverishment a. SD: a T node specied as [Past, +Participant, +Author, +Singular] and an ergative clitic specied as [Participant] b. SC: T [Past, Participant, Author, +Singular] Ondarru: First Plural T Impoverishment a. SD: a T node specied as [+Participant, +Author, Singular] and an ergative clitic specied as [+Participant] b. SC: T [Participant, Author, Singular] Ondarru: Third Plural T Impoverishment a. SD: a T node specied as [Past, Participant, Author, Singular] and an ergative clitic specied as [+Participant] b. SC: T [Past, Participant, Author] Ondarru: vocabulary entry for rst singular in the past
(66)
(67)
(68)
(69)
Section 3.4 The realization of agreement on T itu [+Have, +Past, +Part, +Author, +Sing]/ (70)
125
[Peripheral, Part, Author] Past 1.Sg Present Present
Ondarru: vocabulary entries for participant transitive T a. indu [+Have, +Past, +Participant] b. a [+Have, Past, +Participant, +Author, +Singular] c. aitu [+Have, Past, +Participant] Ondarru: vocabulary entries for third person monotransitive T in the present a. oitu [Ergative] [+Have, Past, Participant, Author, Singular]/ b. au [+Have, Past, Participant, Author]/ [Ergative, Participant] Ondarru: vocabulary entries for ditransitive T in the past a. e [+Have, +Past, Part, Author]/[Ergative, +Author, +Singular] b. en [+Have, +Past Participant, Author]/[Ergative, +Participant]
(71)
Plural
(72)
[Dative] [Dative]
(73)
Ondarru: vocabulary entries for third person transitive T in the past a. endu [+Have, +Past, Participant, Author]/[Ergative, +Participant] b. eu [+Have, Appl, +Past, Participant, Author] Ondarru: Default vocabulary entry for transitive T o [+Have]
(74)
The main differences with respect to Lekeitio are the following: Unlike Lekeitio, Ondarru does not have Past Participant T Impoverishment (51), with the consequence that participant T in the latter dialect is not identical in the past and the present. As a consequence, Ondarru has two particular entries, -itu- (69) and -indu- (70a), for this environment. First plural is realized in the same way as third person in Ondarru in the context of a participant ergative clitic, due to First Plural T Impoverishment (67). Unlike Lekeitio, -eu- (73b) is restricted to monotransitive T (Appl) in Ondarru, which accounts for its absence in ditransitive auxiliaries. Third Plural T Impoverishment (68), particular to Ondarru, ensures that third plural -oitu(71a) is not inserted in the context of a participant ergative clitic (with the exception of rst singular, due to prior application of First Singular Clitic Impoverishment (65)). The entries for -e- (72a) and -en- (72b) (absent in Lekeitio) are specied for past ditransitive auxiliaries, in the particular contexts of a rst singular (-e-) or participant (-en-) ergative clitic. The ergative clitic must precede T, which limits these exponents to cases of Ergative Metathesis (see discussion below (58)). As shown in Subsection 4.1 in Chapter 5, Metathesis
126
Chapter 3. The Morphophonology of Basque Finite Auxiliaries does not apply when the dative clitic is rst person. In this case, -en- cannot be inserted, and default -o- is used instead.30
The discussion above abstracts away from certain transitive auxiliaries whose T exponents are not the expected ones given the analysis developed so far. These forms are due to the postsyntactic operations Root Reduplication and Participant Dissimilation. Their effects on VI in T are discussed in Section 7 in Chapter 5 and in SECTION in Chapter 6, respectively. Zamudio has the following Impoverishment rules and vocabulary entries for transitive T: (75) Zamudio: First Singular Clitic Impoverishment a. SD: a clitic Cl specied as [+Participant, +Author, +Singular] b. SC: Cl [+Participant, +Singular] Zamudio: First Singular T Impoverishment a. SD: a T node specied as [Past, +Participant, +Author, +Singular] and an ergative clitic b. SC: T [Past, Participant, Author, +Singular] Zamudio: First Plural T Impoverishment a. SD: a T node specied as [Past, +Participant, +Author, Singular] and an ergative clitic specied as [+Participant] b. SC: T [Past, Participant, Author, Singular] Zamudio: Third Ditransitive T Impoverishment a. SD: A T node specied as [+Past, Participant, Author], a dative clitic and an ergative clitic specied as [Participant, Author]. b. SC: T [+Past] Zamudio: vocabulary entries for participant transitive T a. endu [+Have, +Past, +Participant] b. aitu [+Have, Past, +Participant] Zamudio: vocabulary entries for third person transitive T in the present a. itu [+Have, Past, Part, Auth, Singular]/ [Ergative, Part] b. au [+Have, Past, Part, Author]/ [Ergative, Part] Zamudio: vocabulary entry for past ditransitive T eun [+Have, +Past, Participant, Author]/[Ergative] [Dative] Past Present Plural Singular
(76)
(77)
(78)
(79)
(80)
(81) (82)
Zamudio: vocabulary entries for third person transitive T in the past a. endu [+Have, +Past, Participant, Author]/[Ergative, +Participant] b. eu [+Have, Appl, +Past, Participant, Author] Zamudio: Default vocabulary entry for transitive T o [+Have]
(83)
30 This
discussion of the realization of ditransitive T is also relevant for auxiliaries with Absolutive Promotion (Subsection 3.2 in Chapter 2). Although they are not syntactically ditransitive, they contain a dative clitic, an ergative clitic, and default third singular agreement in T. Thus, for the purposes of VI in T, they are the same as ditransitive auxiliaries.
127
The main differences between Zamudio and the other two varieties can be summarized as follows: Unlike the other two dialects, First Singular Impoverishment (76) is not restricted to the context of a third person ergative clitic. Thus, rst singular has the same realization as third singular in the present tense in this dialect: -au- (80b) or -o- (83). First plural in the present tense is realized in the same way as third person in Zamudio in the context of a participant ergative clitic, due to First Plural Impoverishment (77). As in Ondarru, Zamudio does not have Past Participant T Impoverishment (51), and the specic entry -endu- (79a) is inserted in participant T in the past.31 The realization of T in past ditransitives is somewhat more complex in Zamudio. First, there is a specic entry -eun- (81) for this environment. As with similar entries in Ondarru, it is restricted to cases where Ergative Metathesis applies. In other cases, default -o- (83) is used. -eun- is also prevented from being inserted (default -o- being used instead) in the context of a third person ergative clitic, due to Third Ditransitive T Impoverishment (78). As in Ondarru, the discussion above ignores auxiliaries whose clitics are affected by Participant Dissimilation. See Section 5 in Chapter 4. To summarize, the realization of transitive T shares many properties across the the three varieties discussed here. Two rules, First Singular Clitic Impoverishment and First Singular T Impoverishment are present in the three varieties. Furthermore, all three varieties share most of their vocabulary entries, with minor differences in their feature specications: intransitive -itz-, -ina/intz-, -ira/i-, and -a-, and transitive -aitu-, -(o)itu-, -au-, -eu-, -endu- and -o-. The major differences among the three varieties are due to dialect-particular Impoverishment rules and vocabulary entries. 3.4.4 Multiple agreement in Lekeitio In this Subsection, we account for the surface form of T nodes in Lekeitio auxiliaries that have multiple -feature sets. The account is based on the claim that only one exponent can be inserted in a terminal node, and that in these cases competition between exponents is decided by the normal procedure for Vocabulary Insertion.
In Ondarru, as in many other Biscayan varieties, the form of this exponent is -indu- (70a). The form of Zamudio participant -endu- (79a) makes it homophonous with third person -endu- (82a). This suggests that a single default endu- entry for past ditransitive T might account for the distribution of this exponent in Zamudio, but we have not been able to make such an analysis work so far. There are, however, certain facts that point to that account, at least for some speakers. First, in the context of a rst singular ergative clitic, third person T in the past is -endu- (82a), not -eu- (82b), for some speakers (Gaminde 2000:374) (see (58) above and surrounding discussion). This strongly suggests that for these speakers, third person -endu- does not have the contextual restriction imposed on (82a), which would thus make it a true past tense default. A second fact pointing to this type of analysis comes from a parallel with the equivalent past monotransitive paradigm in Lekeitio: this dialect lacks an entry for participant T in the past (Subsection 4.2; cf. (70a) in Ondarru). In turn, this is due to Past Participant T Impoverishment (51), which changes a node specied as [+Past, +Participant] into [Past, +Participant]. Given the relation between markedness and Impoverishment discussed in Chapter 4, this rule makes a doubly-marked T node less marked by affecting the feature Past. The presence of default -endu- as the realization of participant past tense in Zamudio could similarly be the result of an Impoverishment rule affecting the marked feature [+Participant] in the same environment as in Lekeitio.
31
128
Although T in Basque agrees with both absolutive and dative arguments, it typically surfaces only with -features from the absolutive argument: (84) Mokixe-k gu-rii tabaku-0 / erragala-0 / Mokixe.ERG us.DATi tobacco-ABS . SG give-PRF d -o -kui -0. / (>sku) L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .1. PLi -CL . E .3. SG Mokixe gave us tobacco.
(Ondarru)
This is due to the two-step procedure for agreement proposed in Section 4 in Chapter 2. In the syntax, T triggers Agree-Link with both the rst plural dative clitic and the third singular absolutive argument. However, postsyntactic Agree-Copy only copies features from the absolutive Goal. The result is third singular agreement in (84): replacing third singular -o- with rst plural -aituis ungrammatical in this example (*daitusku).32 Exceptions to this pattern are due to operations that in some way circumvent the requirement on Agree-Copy to the effect that only -features from absolutive Goals can be copied to T. Specifically, First Dative T Impoverishment in Lekeitio changes the case features of rst person dative clitics to absolutive in ditransitive auxiliaries (Subsection 4.2 in Chapter 2). The effect of this rule in agreement can be seen in the Lekeitio counterpart of (84): (85) -aitu -0. (>gaitxu) / Mokixe-k gu-rii tabaku-a erragala-0 gi / Mokixe.ERG us.DATi tobacco-ABS . SG give-PRF CL . A .1. PLi -PRS .1. PL -CL . E .3. SG Mokixe gave us tobacco. (Lekeitio, Fernndez 2001:153)
As a result of the Impoverishment rule, -features from both the rst plural dative (impoverished to absolutive) and the third singular absolutive Goals are copied to T. Although both sets of features are copied, only one of them is realized overtly. In this particular example, T surfaces with rst plural agreement. As shown below, this is not always true, and T can in some cases surface with absolutive agreement. Which feature bundle is picked for realizing T varies depending on specic feature combinations in T, as well as the -features of the adjacent ergative clitic. Also relevant to the present discussion is the behavior of complementizer agreement in these forms, which can also reect agreement with either the dative or the absolutive argument. Furthermore, the source of overtly realized -features in T and complementizer agreement need not be the same. This is illustrated in the following example, where, as indicated with coindexation, T crossreferences the dative argument and complementizer agreement, the absolutive argument: (86) ni-rii antxo-ak j emo-n Su-k you(Sg)-ERG me-DATi anchovies-ABS . PL j give-PRF ni -ai -su -s j . CL . A .1. SG i -PRS .1. SG i -CL . E .2. SG -3. PL You(Sg) have given me anchovies.
(Lekeitio, (Fernndez 2001:162))
Table 3.7 contains all the relevant forms from the dialect of Lekeitio (Hualde et al. 1994:125).33 In
both exponents is ungrammatical as well: *doaitusku, *daituosku. that the syntactically dative rst person clitic in these forms is morphologically absolutive due to First Dative T Impoverishment. We label the relevant columns in Table 3.7 as dative for ease of exposition.
33 Recall 32 Using
129
Table 3.7: Multiple agreement in Lekeitio present tense ditransitives 1Sg dative Ergative 3Sg absolutive 3Pl absolutive 2 singular n-a-su n-a-su-s 2 plural n-a-su-e n-a-su-e-s 3 singular n-au-0 / n-itu-0-s / 3 plural n-au-0-e / n-au-0-e-s / 1Pl dative 3Sg absolutive 3Pl absolutive g-aitu-su g-aitu-su-s g-aitu-su-e g-aitu-su-e-s g-aitu-0(-s) / g-aitu-0-s / g-aitu-0-e / g-aitu-0-e-s /
each cell, the bold-faced string is the exponent of T. The exponent -s at the end of some of them forms is the realization of complementizer agreement. Another important morphophonological property of these auxiliaries is that the realization of -features in T and complementizer agreement does not depend on the case features of the Goal. For instance, rst plural agreement in (85) is with the dative argument, and its exponent -aituis identical with that found in a monotransitive sentence with a rst plural absolutive argument (covert in the following example): (87) maneka-ten g -aitu -0 / -n -a (>gaittuna) lead-IMP CL . A .1. PL -PRS .1. PL -CL . E .3. SG -CREL -ABS . SG the one who leads us (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:231)
This can be further veried by comparing the exponents for T in Table 3.7 with those in monotransitives, given in Table 3.6 on page 121. Each exponent of T in the former is identical with some T exponent in the latter. The same is true for complementizer agreement. The complex distribution of T and complementizer agreement exponents in these forms follows from the theory of Vocabulary Insertion proposed in Subsection 2.2, which adapts ideas from van Koppen 2005. Specically, in cases where a terminal node contains more than one subbundle of features, VI selects a potentially different exponent for each subbundle. Since only one exponent can be inserted per terminal node, VI then selects one of the exponents using the ordinary procedure: the most specic one, or, in cases where specicity is not relevant, the one with the most marked MFS. Our analysis thus predicts that the realization of T and complementizer agreement in these cases is highly dependent on the specic vocabulary entries available for exponence of the different -feature bundles. In all cases of Agree-Copy from multiple Goals in Lekeitio, the dative (impoverished to absolutive) clitic is rst person, since First Dative T Impoverishment only affects rst person clitics. Furthermore, the absolutive Goal is always third person, due to the PCC (Section 3 in Chapter 2). Thus, the relevant vocabulary entries for T are the following (repeated from Subsection 4.2): (88) Vocabulary entries for rst and third person monotransitive T in the present in Lekeitio a. a [+Have, Past, +Participant, +Author, +Singular] 1Sg b. aitu [+Have, Past, +Participant] 1Pl c. itu [Ergative, Part, +Singular] 3Pl [+Have, Past, Part, Author, Singular]/ d. au
130
Chapter 3. The Morphophonology of Basque Finite Auxiliaries [+Have, Past, Participant, Author]/ o [+Have] [Ergative, Participant] 3
e.
First Singular T Impoverishment, repeated here from (52), is also relevant for cases where the dative Goal is rst singular: (89) First Singular T Impoverishment in Lekeitio a. SD: a T node specied as [+Have, Past, +Participant, +Author, +Singular] and an ergative clitic specied as [Participant] b. SC: T [+Have, Past, Participant, Author, +Singular]
As is evident in the entries given above, the realization of T is subject to contextual allomorphy: the features of an adjacent ergative clitic are relevant in determining the exponence of T. It is thus convenient to discuss the predictions of the analysis by partitioning the data into three types of cases. First, consider auxiliaries with a second person singular ergative clitic:34 (90) The realization of multiple agreement in the context of a second singular ergative clitic First Third Sg: d-o-su Pl: d-o-su-s Sg: n-a-su n-a-su n-a-su-s Pl: g-aitu-su(-s) g-aitu-su g-aitu-su-s
The data in this tableau are arranged in order to highlight the competition between the exponents of rst person dative agreement and third person absolutive agreement. The cells in the rst row contain monotransitive auxiliaries agreeing with a rst person absolutive argument, and those in the rst column contain monotransitive auxiliaries agreeing with a third person absolutive argument. The rest of the cells give the ditransitive forms relevant here. For instance, cell (2,2) (n-a-su) contains an auxiliary with rst singular (dative) agreement and third person singular (absolutive) agreement. The arrows to the left of each form indicate which -feature set determines the realization of T: an upward arrow indicates rst person (dative) agreement, and a leftward arrow indicates third person (absolutive) agreement. In all the ditransitive auxiliaries in (90), T surfaces with rst person (dative) agreement. The relevant entries are -a- (88a) and -aitu- (88b) for rst person, and -o- (88e) (the other third person entries being blocked by their contextual restriction). Since both -a- and -aitu- are more specic than -o- (the default entry), the latter are chosen for insertion in T. The following set of data illustrate the possibility of surface agreement with the absolutive Goal instead of the dative: (91) The realization of multiple agreement in the context of a third singular ergative clitic
34 As
predicted by the analysis, the realization of T is the same if the ergative clitic is second plural.
131
First Third Sg: d-au-0 / Pl: d-itu-0-s /
Sg: n-au-0 / n-au-0 / n-itu-0-s /
Pl: g-aitu-0(-s) / g-aitu-0(-s) / g-aitu-0-s /
As indicated by the leftward arrow, the form with features from a rst singular dative Goal and third plural absolutive Goal surfaces with third plural absolutive agreement (n-itu-s). In this particular context, the exponent for third plural is -itu- (88c). Due to (89), rst singular agreement features are impoverished to third, making -au- (88d) the relevant exponent. Since -itu- is more specic than -au- the former is picked for insertion in T. In the auxiliary with rst singular and third singular agreement, -au- is selected for both, and thus VI need not do any further selection for the realization of T. The cases with rst plural (dative) agreement in (91) are somewhat more complicated. In this case, the exponent for rst plural is -aitu- (88b), and the exponents for third person are -au- (88d) (singular) and -itu- (plural). Since the MFS for -aitu- (specied as [+Participant]) and -au/itu(specied as [Participant]) are not in a subset relation with each other, VI resorts to markedness to determine the competition. The result is insertion of -aitu-, since markedness in person features overrides markedness in number. The last case comes from auxiliaries with a third plural ergative clitic: (92) The realization of multiple agreement in the context of a third plural ergative clitic First Third Sg: d-au-0-e / Pl: d-au-0-e-s / Sg: n-au-0-e / n-au-0-e / n-au-0-e-s / Pl: g-aitu-0-e(-s) / g-aitu-0-e / g-aitu-0-e-s /
The realization of T is very similar to the previous case. The main difference lies in the fact third person plural -itu- (88c) is restricted to auxiliaries with a third singular ergative clitic. Thus, it is not available in these cases, and where -itu- surfaces in (91), it is replaced by -au- in (92). The realization of complementizer agreement is accounted for in a similar way. As discussed in Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 2, this morpheme has a single exponent, -s, in cases of plural agreement, and it is 0 otherwise.35 In cases of multiple agreement in T, both feature bundles are copied to / complementizer agreement. Thus, the expectation is that -s surfaces whenever C (and T) has third plural (absolutive) features, rst plural (dative) features, or both. This prediction is clearly borne out in all cases with third plural agreement: all of them have -s (see bottom row in (90)(92)). In cases of rst plural (combined with third singular) agreement the distribution of this exponent is more irregular. According to the data given in Hualde et al. 1994:125, the exponent only surfaces (optionally) in the context of a third singular ergative clitic (see last column in (91)), but not otherwise (see last column in (90) and (92)). We assume that this is due to the more generally irregular distribution of this exponent when realizing agreement with nonthird person arguments (see Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 2). Our analysis thus derives in a principled way the complex distribution of exponents of T and
35 A
detail not relevant here is that second singular also triggers insertion of -s. See Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 2.
132
complementizer agreement in cases of multiple agreement. The vocabulary entries and Impoverishment rules independently needed for monotransitives, together with natural assumptions about VI, are all that is needed to account for the data. 3.4.5 Summary The realization of the root in Basque auxiliaries is one of the most idiosyncratic morphological phenomena in this language, and is subject to a lot of variation. As shown in detail above, the exponence of this morpheme depends on a number of factors: person and number agreement features (of both the absolutive and dative kind), tense, the postsyntactic transitivity feature [Have], and features from other morphemes in the auxiliary. The analysis offered in this Section reduces these idiosyncrasies to the minimum possible, by making a clear distinction between features in the T node, which are realized by the exponents inserted in the morpheme, and features in adjacent morphemes, which determine contextual allomorphy. This theoretically motivated distinction allows us to account the variation among the three dialects studied here in a principled way, and provides a relatively straightforward way of further testing the theory by extending the analysis to other dialects. For instance, the adjacency condition on contextual restrictions correctly predicts that features of an ergative clitic cannot have an effect on the realization of T in ditransitives, since the dative clitic intervenes between the two. This prediction is borne out in many other varieties, Biscayan and other, and should be straightforward to test in future work. This analysis of the realization of the root rests on two crucial syntactic claims: (i) the root is a morphosyntactically atomic piece, and (ii) it contains both person and number agreement features. These two claims are novel in the literature on Basque verbal morphology; the next Section compares our analysis to others, paying special attention to this aspect of the account. 3.5 The realization of auxiliary morphemes in previous accounts In the analysis of Basque nite auxiliaries proposed in this book, we make an important distinction between pronominal clitics and agreement: (93) Order of morphemes in Basque auxiliaries Abs clitic Tense/Agreement Dat clitic Erg clitic Comp agreement Comp
This distinction allows us to account for the phenomenon of multiple exponence, which is most apparent in sentences with a nonthird person absolutive argument, which is crossreferenced both by an absolutive clitic and by agreement in T and C. This makes our analysis of Basque auxiliaries consistent with a theory of morphology where true multiple exponence does not exist, a central desideratum in Distributed Morphology. Previous accounts take a different route in accounting for the multiple exponent puzzle. Specifically, our clitic/agreement split corresponds (roughly) to a split between person and number agreement in previous literature (i.a. Laka 1993a, Albizu and Eguren 2000, Fernndez and Albizu 2000, Rezac 2006, 2008). Consider, for instance, the following auxiliary:36 (94)
36 The
g
CL . A .1. PL
-aitu -0 / -PRS .1. PL -CL . E .1. SG
auxiliary in (94) surfaces as ga(i)txu in Lekeitio and Ondarru due to palatalization (Subsection 6.3).
Section 3.5 The realization of auxiliary morphemes in previous accounts
133
Table 3.8: Basque pronominal clitics

(Lek: Lekeitio; Ond: Ondarru; Zam: Zamudio) Absolutive Lek Ond Zam nnngggssss-. . . -e s-. . . -e s-. . . -e Ergative Lek Ond -t/-ra -t/-a -gu -gu -su -su -su-e -su-e -0/-o / -0 / -0-e/-o-e -0-e / / Dative Ond -t -ku -tzu -tzu-e -ko/-tz -ko-e/-tz-e
1Sg 1Pl 2Sg 2Pl 3Sg 3Pl
Zam -t/-da -u -su -su-e -0/-o / -0-e/-o-e /
Lek -t/-ra -ku -tzu -tzu-e -ko/-tz -ko-e/-tz-e
Zam -t -ku -tzu -tzu-e -ko/-tz -ko-e/-tz-e
In our analysis, g- is a proclitic doubling a rst plural absolutive argument, and the root -aituis the exponent of T, which agrees with that same argument. In previous accounts, these exponents are analyzed as follows: (95) g- and -aitu- in previous analyses a. g-: person agreement b. -aituis decomposed into exponents realizing three separate morphemes: (i) -a-: tense/theme (ii) -it-: number agreement (iii) -u-: auxiliary root
Another difference between our analysis and previous ones apparent in (95) is the decomposition of what we identify as a tense/agreement morpheme (the root) into three separate morphemes.37 In this Section, we examine the plausibility of these standard assumptions about Basque verbal morphology, and argue for the analysis proposed in this book. Although there are signicant differences between particular analyses, they share these assumptions to at least some extent. The discussion below abstracts away from these differences. Consider rst the claim that Basque verbal morphology has separate exponents for person and number agreement. Specically, what in our analysis are clitics specied for both person and number are analyzed as the realization of person (not number) agreement. The relevant exponents are shown in Table 3.8 (plural -e is typically analyzed as number agreement; see below). This type of analysis is initially plausible for second and third person: s-/-su/-tzu are specied as second person but syncretic for singular and plural, and third person -0/-o/-ko/-tz are also syncretic for number. / However, rst singular n-/-da/-t and rst plural g-/-(g)u/-ku are clearly specied for number. This irregular pattern of syncretism is expected in an analysis like ours where the relevant morphemes are specied for both types of features, but the exponents that are inserted in them need not be. However, it represents a problem for analyses that assume that these are exponents of only person. The other part of this standard analysis, namely the claim that Basque auxiliaries contain dedicated plural agreement morphemes, is intimately related to the decomposition of the root illustrated
This type of analysis is explicitly argued for in classical accounts of Basque verbal morphology, such as de Azkue 1925:Chapter 13, and in modern diachronic accounts (Gmez Lpez and Sainz 1995, Trask 1997:218234). It is also adopted in different ways as the correct synchronic analysis of nite verbs in the references cited above.
37
134
with the auxiliary gaitu (94) above. As shown in (95), the root is standardly decomposed into three morphemes: (i) tense/theme, (ii) plural (number) agreement, and (iii) auxiliary root. This decomposition might be apparent in some specic cases, but we argue below that it is very difcult to maintain as a general analysis of the Basque auxiliary root. Although this decompositional aspect of previous analyses is problematic, we would like to emphasize that the features involved in realizing the root are the same in our analysis (or have clear equivalents). The rst position is an exponent typically realized by a vowel (-a- in gaitu) that realizes tense features.38 The second position is number agreement, e.g. plural -it- in gaitu. The features involved in both cases are part of the root in our analysis (although it also includes person agreement features; see below). The parallel might not be so clear with respect to the third position, namely the auxiliary root (-u- in gaitu). However, the identity of the root is dependent on argument structure: be in intransitive auxiliaries, and have in intransitives (both with several allomorphs, cf. intransitive -as (46b) and -ara- (47b) and transitive -au- (54b) and -endu- (55a) in Lekeitio). In our analysis, this is reected in the feature [Have] inserted postsyntactically in T (Subsection 4.1).39 This decomposition of the auxiliary encounters several difculties. Consider, for instance, the root exponents -au- (54b) and -o- (56) in Lekeitio, which surface in present tense auxiliary transitives with third singular agreement (the other two dialects also have these exponents, but with a somewhat different distribution). Under a decomposition analysis, -au- can be analyzed as a (present tense) + 0 (singular agreement) + u (transitive root). However, it is not clear how / -o- should be decomposed. It might be analyzed as the result of coalescence of the vowels in -a-u-, but the phonological rule needed to account for this would have a disjoint morphological environment in its structural description: left adjacent to a dative clitic or a nonthird person ergative clitic. In fact, the contexts where this hypothetical coalescence does not occur fall under a unied generalization: left-adjacent to a third person ergative clitic. Alternatively, one might analyze o- as the realization of one of the two morphemes (tense or root), with the other receiving null exponence. This would also lead to complications in trying to account for the precise distribution of the hypothesized exponents -o- and -0-. Lekeitio rst singular present transitive -a- (53a) also / poses a challenge to a decomposition analysis: if -a- is the present tense exponent, a null root would have to be posited in this case as well.40 Root forms that under a decomposition analysis have a plural agreement exponent raise similar issues. One example is provided by the root exponent -aitu- in (94)(95), where the string -itThis vowel is -a- in the present and -e- in the past: cf. our entries for -au- (71b) and -eu- (73b) in Ondarru. It can also be -in-, cf. Ondarru -indu- (70a). In some analyses, tense is assumed to be realized as a sufx at the end of the auxiliary (Laka 1993a, Albizu and Eguren 2000, Fernndez and Albizu 2000, Albizu 2002, Rezac 2006, 2008), in order to account for the exponent -n in the past tense (see Section 6 in Chapter 2 and Subsection 6.1 below for arguments that -n is an exponent of C, not T). In these analyses, the initial vowel is thus often analyzed as an epenthetic vowel or a theme morpheme, sometimes making an explicit parallel with theme vowels in Romance verbs (Albizu 2002:5, Rezac 2006:Chapter 1, 38). In any case, the form of these exponents is clearly dependent on tense features. 39 Two other auxiliary roots are posited in order to account for nonindicative auxiliaries (Hualde 2003b:212, 221). Discussion of these would take us beyond the scope of the present study, which is limited to indicative auxiliaries (see Subsection 4.5 in Chapter 1 for justication). 40 Intransitive auxiliaries raise similar issues. For instance, exponent of the present tense intransitive is -as- (62c) in the rst singular and -a- (64) in the third singular in Ondarru. The former could be decomposed as a (present tense) + 0 (singular agreement) + s (intransitive root), but third singular -a- does not lend itself easily to this analysis. /
38
Section 3.5 The realization of auxiliary morphemes in previous accounts
135
is hypothesized to be the exponent of plural number agreement. This hypothesis might receive support from the fact that -it- is also part of the third plural root exponents -itu- (Lekeitio (54a) and Zamudio (80a)) and -oitu- (Ondarru (71a)). However, a decomposition analysis would have to explain the absence of a tense vowel preceding -it-, or the presence of -o- (as opposed to -a-), in these third plural exponents. The distribution of vowels before -it- in these cases clearly depends on person. This is a clear indication that, as proposed in our analysis, root material contains both person and number agreement features, not just number. The plural clitic exponent -e and complementizer agreement -s are also commonly referred to as plural markers, under the same category as -it-. Our account is in agreement with previous ones with respect to the claim that -e and -s are exponents of separate morphemes (not part of the root). However, as shown in Subsection 3.5, their fairly complex distribution receives a natural account under the hypothesis that the basic distinction to be made among morphemes crossreferencing arguments is that between pronominal clitics and agreement, not between person and number. To summarize, previous accounts differ from ours in two respects: (i) person and number agreement features are in separate morphemes, and (ii) the root is decomposable into several morphemes. Although this type of analysis might be possible, the complexities involved would make it implausible. Note, furthermore, that the issues raised in the previous paragraphs are merely illustrative; similar problems arise in virtually every other part of the auxiliary paradigm. For instance, so-called plural -it- is absent in past tense transitives in Ondarru and Zamudio.41 On the other hand, an analysis based on a syntactically atomic root morpheme (with tense, person/number agreement and transitivity features) provides a much simpler account, as shown in Subsections 4.24.3. More specically, several of the distributional patterns discussed above are accounted for by hypothesizing several morphophonologically atomic transitive present T exponents whose distribution depends on both person and number: -a- for rst singular, -aitu- for other participants, (-o)itu- for third plural, -au- for third person, and default -o-.42 Contextual restrictions on these exponents, as well as dialect-particular Impoverishment rules acting both on person and number features, account for the distribution of default -o- and for dialect-particular exceptions to these generalizations. This is a moderately complex analysis that is required by the complex set of data to be accounted for. It is not clear how decomposing these exponents, or making a distinction between person and number agreement, would shed any light on their distribution. We would like to add two important caveats to the discussion above. First, although this book deals exclusively with nite auxiliaries, a few Basque lexical verbs have nite forms (Subsection 4.5 in Chapter 1). The morphology of these nite forms do provide evidence that some
might be tempted to explain this by appealing to the presence of the complementizer agreement exponent -s in past tense auxiliaries (see Table 6 in the Appendix), which can be analyzed as a plural marker (though see Subsection 3.5 and footnote 42 below). This would entail analyzing -s and -it- as exponents of the same morpheme. This analysis would encounter two problems. First, the two exponents appear in different positions in the auxiliary: -it- is in the root position, and -s is inserted in complementizer agreement, which makes it left-adjacent to C. Second, they are not in complementary distribution (e.g. several forms in Table 3 in the Appendix have both -it- and -s). 42 Note that one of the exponents containing so-called plural -it-, -aitu-, is specied for person, not number. The main reason for this is that -aituis the realization of second singular as well as rst and second plural (Subsection 4.2). Its distribution thus seems independent of number. This is reminiscent of the fact that the complementizer agreement exponent -s realizes both second singular and rst, second, and third plural. As discussed in Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 2, the latter fact is due to a special rule applying in complementizer agreement morphemes which in effect makes second singular syncretic with plural. No such analysis is needed for -aitu-, where an account in terms of person features seems simpler.
41 One
136
Table 3.9: Finite forms of jun go in Ondarru Present Past 1 singular n-u n-i-u-n 1 plural g-u-s g-i-u-s-n 2 singular s-u-s s-i-u-s-n 2 plural s-u-s-e s-i-u-s-e-n 3 singular d-u 0-i-u-n / 3 plural d-u-s 0-i-u-s-n /
decomposition of root material is needed. Consider, for instance, the verb jun go in Ondarru, whose nite forms are listed in Table 3.9.43 These forms have pieces that are readily identiable in our analysis, and they surface in the expected position. The rst exponent is an absolutive clitic doubling the only argument of this unaccusative verb. In the third person, a d- or null L-morpheme appears in place of a clitic, as expected (see (38) in Subsection 3.4 for auxiliaries with the same L-morpheme exponents). The plural clitic exponent -e appears only in the second plural form, and complementizer agreement -s surfaces in both plural and second singular forms, all of which is as expected (Subsection 3.5).44 What would correspond to the root (T) position in auxiliaries is lled by two clearly distinct morphemes: the root -u-,45 and a tense morpheme (-i- in the past, null in the present). Therefore, there seems to be evidence for some type of decomposition in the root position in nite verbs. However, this is compatible with our analysis of nite auxiliaries. The decomposition present in nite lexical verb forms is into a tense/agreement morpheme (which is syncretic for person and number in most cases) and the root of the verb. It is natural to assume that auxiliaries have no lexical root, so that the only morpheme present in this position is T, as is the case in our analysis.46 Crucially, nite lexical forms do not provide evidence for the type of decomposition proposed in standard analyses of auxiliaries. It is also important to note that the nite conjugation of lexical verbs is severely limited, as discussed in Subsection 4.5 in Chapter 1. It is thus hard to draw solid conclusions from nite forms of lexical verbs. The second caveat has to do with the fact that we have reached our conclusions based on the auxiliaries of three Biscayan varieties. It might be possible that some other Basque variety is more amenable to a different analysis where the auxiliary root can be decomposed, or in which person and number agreement are split in nite forms. However, we are modestly condent that are our analysis can be extended to other Biscayan varieties, and possibly to other dialects. However, a detailed analysis of all Biscayan varieties, let alone one including all Basque varieties, is far beyond the scope of a single volume,47 and conrmation of our conclusions from other dialects must await
The nal complementizer exponent -n surfaces as -en when preceded by a consonant, e.g. g-i-u-s-n gixusen (Subsection 6.1). 44 The relative position of -e and -s is highly variable across Biscayan dialects. In auxiliaries, plural -e ssioned from an absolutive clitic typically precedes -s, but the order is reversed in some dialects, as is the case in Table 3.9. See Section 3 in Chapter 5 for the placement of plural -e within Basque auxiliaries. 45 The citation form of the verb is j-u-n: -u- is the root, -n is the past participle sufx (the citation form of verbs is always the past participle), and j- is a prex that appears in all nonnite forms of all verbs of native stock. This prex is typically e- or i-, but it has become a consonant before some vowels (Trask 1997:154). 46 The nite forms of the verb ixan be (ixen in Zamudio) are identical to the intransitive auxiliary (Table 1 in the Appendix). In non-Biscayan varieties, monotransitive auxiliary forms (Tables 3 and 6 in the Appendix) can also be used as lexical possessive verbs meaning have. This is expected in our analysis under the assumption that the root allomorph for these verbs in nite forms is null. 47 See, for instance, the differences in the realization of the root between Lekeitio and Ondarru discussed in Subsection 4.3. These two towns are separated by a 15km road. This gives an idea of the amount of variation present in
43 The string -i-u- surfaces as -ixu-, due to a regular epenthesis rule (Hualde 2003e:4849).
Section 3.6 Phonological rules further research. 3.6 Phonological rules
137
As the reader can easily check in the Tables in the Appendix, corresponding surface forms vary across the three dialects more than is suggested by the analysis of VI proposed here. This is due to variation in the application of several phonological processes. An illustrative example is the following: (96) (97) n
CL . A .1. SG
-au -e -PRS .1. SG -CL . E .3. PL Zamudio neure
Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru n-au-e nabe nabe
Although the underlying form n-au-e is the same in the three dialects, variation in the application of certain phonological rules result in the variation observed on the surface. In this particular case, Zamudio applies two rules, introduced below as r-Epenthesis (114) and Diphthong Raising (117), which account for the dialect-particular allomorphs of the plural clitic exponent -e, which surfaces as -re, and the T exponent -au-, which surfaces as -eu-. In Lekeitio and Ondarru, underlying u is syllabied as onset, and surfaces as b due to a Glide Fortition rule (128) that is absent in Zamudio. This section provides a sketch of the relevant phonological analysis of the three dialects that provides an important ingredient of our account of all the surface forms in the Appendix. As described below, there are many cases where Lekeitio and Ondarru pattern together to the exclusion of Zamudio. This is expected, since the former two varieties belong to the Eastern subdialect of Biscayan, while the latter belongs to the Western subdialect (see Subsection 3.1 in Chapter 1). This is illustrated by Diphthong Raising (117) in Zamudio, which is absent in Lekeitio and Ondarru: this process is present only in Western varieties of Biscayan. On the other hand, there is also variation that does not correspond to this dialectal split, such as the distribution of Low Vowel Assimilation (186). This rule is characteristic of most Biscayan varieties, including Ondarru and Zamudio, but it is absent in Lekeitio. Although we only discuss phonological rules that are relevant for auxiliaries in these three varieties, we have also consulted Gaminde 1984 to check the application of some of these rules in other Biscayan varieties, especially with reference to the Eastern/Western dialectal split mentioned above. We analyze all the phonological processes involved in accounting for the surface forms of auxiliaries in a derivational framework (i.a. Chomsky and Halle 1968). Our adoption of this theoretical framework is mainly for expository purposes, and can be justied on different grounds. First, it is in accord with our general claim that other modules of grammar, such as syntax and (postsyntactic) morphology, are derivational. Second, a derivational theory of phonology provides a natural explanation of opaque interactions, and, as illustrated throughout this Section, several of these phonological processes interact in opaque ways. In stating the rules below, we adopt the following notational conventions. Unless otherwise specied, the rule applies in all three dialects. Furthermore, sounds in most of the rules are represented with standardized orthography; were a more phonologically faithful representation
Basque auxiliaries.
138
is needed, it is indicated with the standard square brackets. After each rule, we provide one or two representative examples. At several points in this Section, we refer to specic exponents realizing T and clitics. A full list and analysis of vocabulary entries for both morpheme types is provided in Sections 34 in the present Chapter. We start in Subsection 6.1 with rules that have very specic morphological conditioning on their application, followed by rules related to syllabication (Subsection 6.2) and other rules (Subsection 6.3). As discussed throughout the Section, many of these rules are crucially ordered with respect to each other, in some cases resulting in opaque interactions. A summary of these issues is provided in Subsection 6.4. Finally, Subsection 6.5 discusses rules that apply across word boundaries. 3.6.1 Morpheme-specic rules We begin with phonological rules that are triggered by specic morphological exponents, which account for a lot of the allomorphic variation among the dialects. The rst phonological process we discuss has to do with the allomorphy of the complementizer exponents -n and -la.48 As discussed in Section 6 in Chapter 2, these exponents occur in the C position in auxiliaries. Both share the same allomorphy pattern; in many cases, they are realized simply as -n and -la, but there are many auxiliary forms where they are preceded by a vowel: a or e. We illustrate this below mostly with -n, but the reader should keep in mind that -la has identical allomorphy patterns. The process responsible for this allomorphy can be stated informally as follows: (98) Precomplementizer Epenthesis (PreC-Epenthesis) Insert a or e before the complementizer in some auxiliaries.
It is tempting to account for the distribution of the epenthetic vowel in terms of syllabication. In many cases, epenthesis occurs when -n is preceded by a consonant, and Cn is not a possible coda in Basque. However, other aspects of this process argue for an analysis in terms of the morphemespecic rule in (98). Consider the following example:49 (99) (100) 0/d -eu/o / -tz -0 / -n L -PST.3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG -CPST Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru 0/d-eu/o-tz-0-n eutzan / / dotzan Zamudio otzen
Since the cluster tzn cannot be tautosyllabic in any dialect in Basque, the epenthetic vowel is expected. In fact, epenthesis always breaks clusters of a consonant followed by a complementizer. The fact that Zamudio epenthesizes e while the other two dialects epenthesize a is also expected: as part of more general strategies of syllable repair, Zamudio inserts e and Lekeitio and Ondarru insert a to break consonant clusters in auxiliaries. This phonologically motivated process of epenthesis is discussed in some detail below.
shown below, this is a complex and idiosyncratic phenomenon, and we only offer here some descriptive comments. A complete descriptive picture can be obtained by inspecting all past tense forms in the Appendix. 49 The three dialects have different exponents for L and T in this auxiliary, which is irrelevant for the discussion here.
48 As
Section 3.6 Phonological rules
139
However, not all complementizer allomorphs containing a vowel can be explained in terms of syllabication (Hualde et al. 1994:183184). The following examples illustrate this point:50 (101) (102) (103) (104) s
CL . A .2. SG
-endu
-n Zamudio gendun
CL . E .1. PL -PST.3. SG -CPST
Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru g-endu-n genduan gendun -ina -n -PST.2. SG -CPST
Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru s-ina-n siian sian
The Lekeitio examples illustrate the fact that some, but not all,51 V-nal exponents of T trigger epenthesis. Furthermore, this is not limited to Lekeitio:52 (105) (106) s
CL . A .2. SG
-ara -n -PRS .2. SG -CSBJ / CINT
Underlying Lekeitio Zamudio s-ara-n sarien sarien
An example illustrating the phenomenon in all three varieties is the following: (107) (108) n -eu -n Zamudio ne[w]en
CL . E .1. SG -PST.3. SG -CPST
Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru n-eu-n neban neban
The past tense exponent -eu- triggers epenthesis in all three dialects. This cannot be accounted for as arising from constraints on syllable structure. This is clear in Zamudio, where the sequence e[w]C is a well-formed rime (as in all other Basque dialects): (109) n
CL . E .1. SG
-eun -tz -n ne[w]n.tzen (Zamudio) -PST.3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CPST
One might be tempted to account for epenthesis in the Lekeitio and Ondarru examples in (108) as a result of the fact that ebn is not a possible rime in Basque. However, that would require an unmotivated change from u to b prior to epenthesis (n-eu-n n-eb-n n-eb-an). In fact,
(103)(104), the middle nasal is palatalized by (174) (Subsection 6.3). In Lekeitio, underlying a is raised to i by Hypermetaphony (119). The corresponding auxiliary in Zamudio is different (sintzen), due to a difference in the underlying exponent for T (see discussion of intransitive T at the beginning of Subsection 4.3). 51 For instance, -aitu- (53b) does not trigger epenthesis in Lekeitio. See the relevant forms in Tables 3 and 6 in the Appendix. 52 The forms in (105)(106) are from Hualde et al. 1994:142 (Lekeitio) and Gaminde 2000:210 (Zamudio). The complementizer is subjunctive in the Lekeitio example and interrogative in the Zamudio form. In both forms, the nal a in -ara- is raised to i by Hypermetaphony (119). The corresponding form in Ondarru is s-as-n sasen, with a different exponent for T (Subsection 4.3).
50 In
140
the exponent -eu- surfaces as -eb- as the result of independently motivated processes related to syllabication: u is syllabied as an onset between vowels, and surfaces as b by Glide Fortition (128) (see Subsection 6.2). This presupposes prior insertion of epenthetic a between [eu] (or [ew]) and -n, which cannot be motivated by constraints on syllable structure.53 Thus, (108) provides examples of epenthesis between V-nal T and -n in all three dialects. One might explain epenthesis before -n in (108) in Lekeitio and Ondarru by positing underlying -eb- instead of -eu- as the exponent of T (but see footnote 53). Although it might work for this specic case, this solution is not valid for the very similar present tense exponent -au-, illustrated in the following examples:54 (110) d -au -0 / (Lekeitio, Ondarru) L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG a. d-au + n daben (in embedded questions or relative clauses) b. d-au + la dabela (in declarative complement clauses)
When not followed by an overt exponent, -au- surfaces as [aw]. When followed by an overt complementizer, an epenthetic vowel is required, which triggers syllabication of u as onset and subsequent Glide Fortition. The latter cases cannot be explained by positing underlying b as part of the exponent of T, since its underlying form is clearly -au-. Thus, these examples provide clear illustration of the need to posit syllabically unmotivated vowel epenthesis between V-nal T and the complementizer. The examples in (105)(108) illustrate another idiosyncrasy in the patterns of epenthesis before complementizers. In Lekeitio and Ondarru, the epenthetic vowel can be either a or e, depending on the specic morphological environment. Contrasting with neban in (108), these dialects epenthesize e in (110) and in the following example (as well as (106) in Lekeitio): (111) (112) dx/g/y -a -ko -s -n L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -S -CPST Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru dx/g/y-a-ko-s-n dxakosen gakosen Zamudio yakosan
Although the two dialects are identical with respect to which vowel is inserted in which specic morphological environment, we have not been able to nd any interesting generalization. The other relevant examples do not illuminate the idiosyncratic contrast between eban and dx/gakosen. The same issue arises to a more limited extent in Zamudio. Although in most cases the epenthetic vowel before the complementizer is e,55 yakosan (112) is an exception. The reader can verify these idiosyncrasies by inspecting the past tense forms in the Appendix. To summarize, it is clear that there are instances of epenthetic vowels before complementizers
the underlying form of this morpheme cannot be -eb- in Lekeitio and Ondarru: its surface form is [eb] when followed by a vowel (108) and [ew] when followed by a consonant, as in Lekeitio n-e[w]-tzun CL . E .1. SG PST. DEF - CL . D .2. SG - N . The surfacing of this morpheme as -eb- is thus fully predictable, which shows that the consonant is derived. 54 Relevant Lekeitio examples of d-au containing an overt complementizer can be found in example (106) in Hualde et al. 1994:184. 55 An example with epenthetic e: 0-o-tz-0-n L - PRS .3. SG - CL . D .3. SG - CL . E .3. SG - CPST otzen. Some apparent / / exceptions are due to Dissimilation (153), which lowers e to a after e (see Subsection 6.3).
53 Furthermore,
141
that cannot be explained in terms of constraints on syllable structure. Furthermore, the distribution and quality of the vowel inserted is subject to idiosyncratic conditions that vary from dialect to dialect. We thus assume that these epenthetic vowels are inserted by the morphologically conditioned PreC-Epenthesis rule in (98), even in cases where a syllable-based explanation might be available. It is important to note that although the patterns or epenthesis can be quite idiosyncratic, the distribution of epenthetic vowels is identical before all complementizers. That is, there is no case in which different allomorphy patterns are used for -la and -n, or for different types of -n (e.g. matrix past tense and embedded interrogative; see Section 6 in Chapter 2). This provides an argument, in addition to those presented in Section 6 in Chapter 2, that all these exponents, including -n in matrix past tense auxiliaries, belong to the same complementizer category. As noted at several points below, this epenthetic process feeds other phonological processes, and must therefore be ordered before them. The alternation between the three allomorphs -n, -en, -an (or -la, -ela, -ala), all derived from underlying -n (-la), accounts for a lot of the surface variation found in the auxiliaries in these dialects, but it is not the only source. The following two rules, specic to Zamudio, apply in the order shown, and account for certain allomorphs of the plural clitic exponent -e in this dialect (see Subsection 3.3). Neither rule applies in Lekeitio or Ondarru, where this clitic is always realized as -e. (113) i-Epenthesis (Zamudio) 0i/C+ / -e Condition: -e = (31) Example: d -o -tz -e dotzie (dotze in Lekeitio/Ondarru) L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .3. PL (114) r-Epenthesis (Zamudio) 0r/X + / -e Condition: X = -au- (80b), -eu- (82b), and -e = (31) Example: 0 -eu / -e -n euren (eben in Lekeitio/Ondarru) L -PST.3. SG -CL . E .3. PL -CPST r-Epenthesis counterfeeds i-Epenthesis, which explains the absence of epenthetic i in Zamudio euren (114).56 In other contexts (after a vowel), this plural clitic surfaces as underlying -e: (115) (116) g
CL . A .1. PL
-aitu -e -PRS .1. PL -CL . E .3. PL Zamudio gaitue
Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru g-aitu-e gaitxue gatxue
Thus, after a vowel, the surface form of -e is the same in the three dialects.57
fact, Gaminde (2000:373374) gives both -eu-r-e and -eu-r-i-e for most of the relevant forms, which suggests that the order is reversed for some speakers. 57 Note that t is palatalized in Lekeitio and Ondarru, which triggers deletion of i in the latter variety (see Subsection 6.3).
56 In
142
The following rules also apply in specic morphological environments, but there is no evidence for any crucial ordering among them or with respect to the other processes discussed above. They account for variation in the surface forms of the T exponent -au- and the rst person dative clitics -t and -ku. (117) Diphthong Raising (Zamudio) ae/X uY Condition: X uY = -au- (80b), gaur today, etc.58 Example: n
CL . A .1 SG
-au -0 / neu (nau in Lekeitio/Ondarru) -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG
(118)
s-Epenthesis59 X +Y 0s/+ / Condition: X is a rst person dative clitic, and Y is an ergative clitic in Lekeitio/Zamudio (null in Ondarru) Example (Zamudio): d -o -t -0 / dost L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .1. SG -CL . E .3. SG Example (Ondarru): g -a -t gasta (yat in Lekeitio, dat in Zamudio) L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .1. SG
The following rule is also triggered by a specic morphological environment, and applies after PreC-Epenthesis (98), as illustrated in (120).60 (119) Hypermetaphony (Lekeitio, Zamudio)61 ai/X +V Condition: X = -ina- (47a), -ara- (47b), -ira- (48) Example: s (120) s -ara -e sarie CL . A .2 -PRS .2. PL -CL . A . PL -ina -n (Lekeitio)
CL . A .2. SG -PRS .2. SG -CPST

58 The effect of Diphthong Raising can also be seen in the past participle ending -eu, from Spanish -ado (pronounced
au in Basque Spanish), e.g. abanteu from Spanish aguantado held (Gaminde 2000:266; cf. Ondarru aguanta). Some roots also trigger Diphthong Raising, such as geur today (Gaminde 2000:115; cf. Ondarru gaur), but not lau four (Gaminde 2000:360). See Hualde 2006:464466, Gaminde 1988, 2002:12. 59 The nal a in Ondarru gasta is epenthetic (see Subsection 6.2). The Ondarru equivalent of Zamudio dost is dosta, which also has this nal epenthetic vowel. Lekeitio has an absolutive clitic in place of an absolutive clitic in this auxiliary, resulting in a very different form: n-au-0 (see Subsection 3.2). / 60 Note that middle n in (120) is palatalized progressively by n-Palatalization (174) (see Subsection 6.3). The ordering of this rule with respect to the others is not crucial. 61 There is a Mid Vowel Raising (MVR) rule that raises e to i in this phonological environment (but it does not have the restricted morphological environment of Hypermetaphony; see discussion surrounding (172) the end of Subsection 6.2). Thus, Hypermetaphony could be restated as raising a to e, which is later raised to i by MVR. See Chapter 2 (especially page 64) in Hualde 1991b for discussion. In both Lekeitio and Zamudio, Hypermetaphony also applies when the low vowel is stem-nal in a nominal environment and followed by the singular article -a. Ondarru also has this rule, but limited to the specic environment described in the previous sentence.
Section 3.6 Phonological rules Underlying PreC-Epenthesis Hypermetaphony n-Palatalization Surface s-ina-n s-ina-an s-ini-an s-ii-an siian
143
Epenthesis feeds Hypermetaphony, which justies this rule order. As can be observed in the examples discussed above, the rules examined in this Subsection account for some of the variation found in surface forms. Specically, i-Epenthesis (113), rEpenthesis (114) and Diphthong Raising (117) only apply in Zamudio, and account for the allomorphs of exponents of the plural clitic -e and third person transitive T -au- only present in this dialect. The other rules discussed above, PreC-Epenthesis (98), s-Epenthesis (118), and Hypermetaphony (119), apply in all three dialects, but differences in their application result in further variation. Although most of this variation goes along the split between Eastern (Lekeitio and Ondarru) and Western (Zamudio) subdialects of Biscayan (Gaminde 1984), the last two rules are particularly interesting because they group Lekeitio and Zamudio apart from Ondarru.62 The processes discussed in the next Subsection, related to syllabication in different ways, further exemplify the Biscayan subdialectal split. 3.6.2 Syllabication and related processes A number of phonological processes are intimately related to syllabication. Although syllable structure obeys the same constraints in Lekeitio, Ondarru and Zamudio, certain processes that interact with syllabication in different ways in auxiliaries are responsible for variation reecting the dialectal split between Eastern Biscayan (Lekeitio and Ondarru) and Western Biscayan (Zamudio) noted at the beginning of the present Section. We limit the discussion here to aspects of syllabication that are crucial in understanding this variation in the form of auxiliaries. See Hualde 2003e for description of syllabication and related processes in Basque, Hualde et al. 1994:2124, 3745 for the variety of Lekeitio, and Ct 2000:274307 for Ondarru. Of particular interest here is the syllabication of high vowels (i, u) when right-adjacent to other vowels. These are systematically syllabied as codas and surface as glides [y, w], as in the following auxiliaries:63 (121) (122) g n -aitu -au -0 / -0 / ga[y]tu (Zamudio), ga[y]txu (Lekeitio) na[w] (Lekeitio/Ondarru), ne[w] (Zamudio)
particular, s-Epenthesis inserts s before the rst singular dative clitic -t in most of Biscayan, including Lekeitio and Zamudio, but only when followed by an ergative clitic. Ondarru, together with a few other scattered towns in the dialectal area, is exceptional because s-Epenthesis applies to all instances of the clitic (Gaminde 1984:vol. 1, 143144). Hypermetaphony triggered by some or all the exponents of T listed in (119) is widespread in Biscayan. 63 The exponent -au- in (122) surfaces as -eu- in Zamudio due to Diphthong Raising (117). The coronal stop following [y] in the Lekeitio form undergoes Obstruent Palatalization (177) (Subsection 6.3). The corresponding form in Ondarru also undergoes diphthongization and palatalization, but the glide that triggers palatalization is deleted, resulting in gatxu (Subsection 6.3).
62 In
144
Although these and other diphthongs are common in all three dialects, [ow] is nonexistent (see e.g. Hualde et al. 1994:22, Hualde 2003e:32). This explains the surface form of the following auxiliary in Zamudio: (123) d -o -u du (Zamudio) L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1 PL
That is, Basque phonotactics does not allow the diphthong [ow], and the underlying vowel sequence ou surfaces as u. The following informal statement of the relevant processes sufces for our purposes: (124) Syllabication In a sequence of two vowels V1 V2 where V2 is a high vowel: a. If V2 is followed by a vowel, V1 is syllabied as nucleus and V2 as the onset of the following syllable. b. Otherwise, V1 is syllabied as nucleus and V2 as coda. Exception: if the vowel sequence is [ou], it surfaces as [u]. Glide Formation When syllabied as part of a coda or onset, [i] [y] and [u] [w].
(125)
The examples discussed so far illustrate (124b). (107)(108), repeated below, provides a relevant example of (124a): (126) (127) n -eu -n Zamudio ne[w]en
CL . E .1. SG -PST.3. SG -CPST
Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru n-eu-n neban neban
Due to the vowel inserted before -n by PreC-Epenthesis (98), u is syllabied as onset. This triggers the application of Glide Formation, which results in surface ne[w]en in Zamudio. In Lekeitio and Ondarru, the glide becomes b by a later rule: (128) (129) Underlying PreC-Epenthesis Syllabication Glide Formation Glide Fortition Surface Glide Fortition (Lekeitio/Ondarru) [w] [b] in onset position Lekeitio n-eu-n n-eu-an ne.uan ne.[w]an ne.ban neban Ondarru n-eu-n n-eu-an ne.uan ne.[w]an ne.ban neban Zamudio n-eu-n n-eu-en ne.uen ne.[w]en N/A ne[w]en
Glide Fortition does not apply across the board in these dialects. Outside of auxiliaries, it is found in a few words. The following are relevant examples from Ondarru:
Section 3.6 Phonological rules (130) Underlying Surface gaua-s gabas at night (instrumental case) makallau-as makalla[w]as with the cod (commitative case)
145
For our purposes, the simplied statement of the rule in (128) will sufce. Another phonological process that interacts with syllabication in an interesting way is the deletion of certain consonants between vowels. This can be observed in the Lekeitio and Ondarru counterparts of Zamudio (123). In these dialects, the surface form is different from Zamudio, due to a minimal difference in the underlying form of the rst plural ergative clitic (-gu in Lekeitio/Ondarru, and -u in Zamudio; see Subsection 3.2): (131) (132) d-o-gu d -o -gu L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1 PL Lekeitio Ondarru dogu/do[w] do[w]
In many Basque dialects, including Lekeitio and Ondarru, intervocalic voiced stops [b, d, g] delete:64 (133) Voiced Stop Deletion (VS-Deletion) [sonorant, continuant, +voice] 0 / V /
This process applies somewhat irregularly, and displays a great deal of dialectal variation. Deletion of g is optional in Lekeitio (Hualde et al. 1994:3335). It is mostly optional in Ondarru as well, but there are a number of words in which it is obligatory. This is illustrated in the following examples: (134) Lekeitio Ondarru bi(g)ote bi(g)ote arpegi/arpe[y] arpe[y] English moustache face
In particular, the variation exemplied by arpe(g)i face accounts for the difference in the surface form of the rst plural ergative clitic in (131)(132). Its initial g is optionally deleted in Lekeitio, but obligatorily in Ondarru. Furthermore, the resulting vowel sequence is resyllabied as a diphthong. In this particular case, it results in diphthong [ow], which as shown above, is not a possible output of initial Syllabication (124). This is possible because the diphthong in Lekeitio and Ondarru is the result of syllable repair after VS-Deletion, which we assume is not constrained by the ban on diphthong [ow]. This contrasts with Zamudio du (123), where initial Syllabication prevents the surfacing of underlying ou as a diphthong:
in all Basque dialects, intervocalic voiced stops that are not deleted are spirantized to [B, D, G]. Furthermore, intervocalic d can also undergo Flapping (183) in Lekeitio and Ondarru. For discussion of these processes in Lekeitio, see Hualde et al. 1994:3336. The phenomenon obeys similar constraints in Ondarru. We do not know of any detailed description of the phenomenon in Zamudio.
64 As
146 (135) Underlying Syllabication VS-Deletion Resyllabication Surface
Chapter 3. The Morphophonology of Basque Finite Auxiliaries Zamudio d-o-u du du Lekeitio/Ondarru d-o-gu do.gu do.u do[w] do[w]
Crucially, the phonological processes that apply in all three dialects are the same, but a minimal difference in the underlying exponent of the rst plural ergative clitic results in the attested difference in the surface form of the auxiliary. Note that the rst plural ergative clitic never actually surfaces as -gu in Ondarru, since intervocalic VS-Deletion is obligatory for this clitic in this dialect, and it always surfaces following a vowel.65 Evidence that g is present in its underlying form comes from its interaction with vowel epenthesis in this dialect and in Lekeitio, which can be stated informally as follows: (136) a-Epenthesis (Lekeitio, Ondarru) Syllable repair in auxiliaries: insert a in nucleus.
Consider the following auxiliary: (137) (138) d-o-tz-gu d -o -tz -gu L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .1. PL Lekeitio Ondarru dotzagu/dotza[w] dotza[w]
The cluster tzC is not well-formed in auxiliaries (see below), and epenthesis occurs in both Lekeitio and Ondarru. This justies the claim that the exponent of the rst plural clitic is -gu in both dialects: a is inserted to syllabify the cluster tzg.66 As illustrated in this example, a-Epenthesis feeds VSDeletion. The same type of interaction between vowel epenthesis and VS-Deletion can be observed in Zamudio: (139) d -o -tz -da -s dotzeas (Zamudio) L -PRS .3. PL -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG -3. PL
As in the previous example, Vowel Epenthesis triggers application of VS-Deletion.67 Note that the epenthetic vowel in (139) is e, not a. This difference in vowel epenthesis between Zamudio and the other two dialects is more general: (140) e-Epenthesis (Zamudio) Syllable repair in auxiliaries: insert e in nucleus.
clitic can surface with the consonant in Lekeitio, where deletion of g is optional. auxiliary surfaces as dotzu in Zamudio: the ergative clitic -u has no initial consonant, so no epenthesis is required. 67 This auxiliary contains the allomorph -da for the rst singular ergative clitic (Subsection 3.2). The surface form of this clitic exponent is subject to some dialectal variation. See discussion under (183) in Subsection 6.3.
66 This
65 The
Section 3.6 Phonological rules (141) (142) d-o-tz-t (143) (144) d-o-tz-su d -o -tz -t L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG Lekeitio Ondarru dotzat dotzat Zamudio dotzet
147
d -o -tz -su L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .2. SG Lekeitio Ondarru dotzasu dotzasu Zamudio dotzesu
See below for further comments on variation in the vowel inserted by epenthesis. As stated in rules (136), (140), vowel epenthesis is a case of category-specic phonotactics. Although vowel epenthesis is common in all Basque dialects, the phonological contexts that trigger it in auxiliaries and other word classes are different. As discussed above, the cluster tzC triggers epenthesis in auxiliaries, but this is not the case in other domains, where affricate tz becomes fricative before a consonant (except s), and the sequence tz-s is simplied to tz. These processes apply word-internally as well as across word boundaries. The following Lekeitio examples are illustrative (Hualde et al. 1994:33):68 (145) a. b. aberatz aberas-tu rich rich-PRF become rich matz politt-a (> maspolitta) grape pretty.ABS . SG the pretty grape matz santarr-a (> matzantarra) grape dirty.ABS . SG the dirty grape
c.
However, epenthetic a (Lekeitio/Ondarru) or e (Zamudio) is inserted consistently in auxiliaries. Word-nal tz triggers the same epenthetic process in auxiliaries:69 (146) d -o -tz -0 / dotza (Ondarru) L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG
The behavior of other words is different, as exemplied in (145). Another consonant cluster that triggers epenthesis is present in -st, an allomorph of the rst singular dative enclitic:70
1992:139142 and Cardinaletti and Repetti 2008:534541 argue that similar morphologically conditioned epenthetic repairs are needed in Valencian Catalan and some Northern Italian languages, respectively. 69 Lekeitio and Zamudio do not have any relevant examples. In particular, the ergative clitic in (146) is realized as allomorph -o (24c) in these dialects (see Subsection 3.2), resulting in dotzo. 70 This allomorph is the result of s-Epenthesis (118) before the rst singular enclitic exponent -t (23b). These examples show that s-Epenthesis feeds a/e-Epenthesis. In Lekeitio, the rst singular clitic in (147) is morphologically absolutive, and therefore realized as proclitic n- (Subsection 3.2). The past tense counterpart of this auxiliary provides a relevant example in this dialect: 0-eu-t-su-n L-PST.3. SG-CL . D .1. SG-CL . E .2. SG-CPST surfaces as eustasun. /
68 Todol
148 (147) (148) d-o-t-su
Chapter 3. The Morphophonology of Basque Finite Auxiliaries d -o -t -su L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .1. SG -CL . E .2. SG Ondarru dostasu Zamudio dostesu
Although the cluster st triggers epenthesis before a consonant in the three dialects, they differ with respect to word-nal position. Lekeitio and Ondarru have epenthesis in this context, but Zamudio does not: (149) (150) d-o-t-0 / d -o -t -0 / L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .1. SG -CL . E .3. SG Lekeitio Ondarru dosta dosta Zamudio dost
On the other hand, the cluster st does not trigger epenthesis in any of these contexts in other domains (examples valid for all three dialects):71 (151) bost ve bost-garren (> bosgarren) fth
Finally, the rst singular enclitic allomorph -t, which can be dative or ergative (Subsection 3.2), triggers epenthesis when followed by a consonant:72 (152) d -o -t -s dotes (Zamudio) L -PRS .3. PL -CL . E .1. SG -3. PL
As expected, the inserted vowel is e in Zamudio. The discussion above is a nearly exhaustive description of the epenthesis-triggering contexts in auxiliaries in the three dialects. Although all of these contexts are naturally described as resulting from constraints on syllable structure, comparison with other categories shows that these constraints are due to auxiliary-specic phonotactics and are subject to some dialectal variation.73 In most epenthesis examples above, the epenthetic vowel is inserted after the dative clitic allomorphs -tz and -st. In fact, these clitics usually surface with a following a in Ondarru and Lekeitio and with a following e in Zamudio, since they usually appear left-adjacent to a consonant or in word-nal position. Thus, one might argue that these clitic exponents are in fact -tza/tze and -sta/ste underlyingly.74
examples can be found in Hualde et al. 1994:249 for Lekeitio and Gaminde 2000:360361 for Zamudio. Lekeitio and Ondarru, the rst singular ergative clitic in this example is realized with a different entry, -da (see Table 3.3 on page 110). Since this does not result in a consonant cluster, no epenthetic vowel is inserted. See Table 3 in the Appendix. 73 Another case of epenthesis occurs in Lekeitio n-eu-s-n CL . E .1. SG - PST.3. PL - PL - CPST nebasan. The rst low vowel on the surface is epenthetic, but this cannot be motivated by conditions on syllable structure: at the point where the vowel is inserted, it is preceded by a vowel u and a consonant s. The preceding vowel becomes b by later application of Glide Formation (125) and Glide Fortition (128). Epenthesis of a creates the context for the other two rules to apply, and must therefore apply before them. Thus, epenthesis in this case does not break a consonant cluster. We assume that this is due to a morphologically conditioned epenthesis rule that applies only in this form. 74 Third person -tz can be followed by a vowel, in which case it surfaces as -tz, as in d-o-tz-0-e L - PRS .3. SG / CL . D .3. SG - CL . E .3- CL . E . PL dotze. In an analysis where this clitic has an underlying vowel, it would be deleted by
72 In 71 These
149
Two arguments can be given against the view that these clitics have an underlying vowel. First, there is at least one other morphological environment that triggers epenthesis in Zamudio, illustrated in (152). Since vowel epenthesis is needed for this case, the appearance of a vowel in similar phonological environments with -tz and -st can be explained in the same way. Positing an underlying vowel in these clitics would not allow us to capture this phonological generalization. A second, stronger argument comes from the features of the epenthesized vowel. As discussed above, it is a in Lekeitio and Ondarru and e in Zamudio. What is important is that it is the same vowel for both clitics within a given dialect. This correlation between the vowel present in both clitics is explained in an epenthesis analysis, but not in the alternative. In fact, inspection of relevant forms across Biscayan varieties shows that this correlation is not an accident of the three particular varieties discussed here. In the forms given in Gaminde 1984:vol. 1, 493498 and vol. 2, 5562 for these clitics when followed by the second singular ergative clitic -su in the present tense, the correlation is almost perfect. Out of 119 varieties, only 8 use a different vowel after -st and -tz. In the remaining 111, the same vowel (a or e) is used after both clitics. Only the epenthesis analysis allows us to capture this correlation. Zamudio has a dissimilation rule that is fed by the epenthetic process described above: (153) (154) (155) Dissimilation (Zamudio) e a / e C0 d -o -tzu -e -t -s (Zamudio) L -PRS .3. PL -CL . D .2 -CL . D . PL -CL . E .1. SG -3. PL Underlying e-Epenthesis Dissimilation Surface d-o-tzu-e-t-s d-o-tzu-e-t-es d-o-tzu-e-t-as dotzuetas
Dissimilation is also fed by PreC-Epenthesis (98):75 (156) (157) n -eun -tz -s -n (Zamudio) L -PST.3. PL -CL . D .3. SG -3. PL -CPST Underlying PreC-Epenthesis e-Epenthesis Dissimilation Surface n -eun -tz -s -n n-eun-tz-s-en n-eun-tze-s-en n-eun-tze-s-an neuntzesan
Interestingly, this rule reduces surface variation among dialects. As discussed above, the epenthetic
Nonhigh Vowel Deletion (163) in this context. The analysis would have to posit a special deletion rule for rst person -ste in Zamudio, since it surfaces as -st in nal position, as illustrated in (149)(150). 75 Note that the second vowel e in surface neuntzesan [newnesan] in (157) is an apparent exception to Dissimilation, since it is preceded by e in the previous syllable. The same is true for the nal vowel in neuen [newen] (108). This can be accounted for by ordering Dissimilation before LV-Assimilation (186). The latter rule raises a to e when following a high vowel or glide (see Subsection 6.3). Dissimilation lowers e to a (n-eun-tza-s-an, n-eu-an), but then LV-Assimilation undoes its effects, resulting in surface neuntzesan, neuen. Other Zamudio auxiliaries found in Tables 68 in the Appendix have a similar analysis.
150
vowel used in Zamudio auxiliaries is e, while it is often a in Lekeitio and Ondarru (see also Subsection 6.1 on PreC-Epenthesis). This dialectal distinction is neutralized in auxiliaries where the epenthetic vowel is preceded by e. Indeed, the Lekeitio counterpart of (156)(157) has the same epenthetic vowel before -n on the surface: (158) (159) n -eu -tz -s -n (Lekeitio) L -PST.3. PL -CL . D .3. SG -3. PL -CPST Underlying PreC-Epenthesis a-Epenthesis Surface n -eu -tz -s -n n-eu-tz-s-an n-eu-tza-s-an neutzasan
Dissimilation has morphological constraints on its application not reected in our formulation in (153). Other than in auxiliaries, its effects can be observed when adding the imperfective participle sufx -ten to (nonnite) verbs ending in e:76 (160) Underlying ego-ten use-ten erre-ten Surface egoten usetan erretan be (no context for Dissimilation) use burn
In several other cases where the phonological conditions on the rule are met, it does not apply. The verb erretan above illustrates this: root-nal e does not undergo Dissimilation despite the preceding identical vowel, but it does trigger the rule on the sufxal vowel. In general, the rule does not apply morpheme-internally (another relevant example is seme son; Gaminde 2000:354). In the nonverbal domain, some sufxes undergo Dissimilation, and others do not: (161) Dissimilation with -en (absolute superlative; Gaminde 2000:352) Underlying Surface on-en-ak onenak the best (no context for Dissimilation) gaste-en-a gasteana the youngest No Dissimilation with -egi (relative superlative; Gaminde 2000:354) Underlying Surface txarr-egi-a txarregie too evil (no context for Dissimilation) gaste-egi-a gasteegie too young (nal -a raised to -e by LV-Assimilation (186))
(162)
We shall maintain the simple formulation of the rule in (153), but the reader should keep in mind the morphological restrictions discussed above. Whereas certain consonant clusters are avoided by vowel epenthesis, certain vowel clusters (hiatus) trigger vowel deletion. In particular, all three dialects have a Nonhigh Vowel Deletion rule, with some variation:77
is due to Iaki Gaminde (personal communication). The other examples (and other relevant ones) can be found in Gaminde 2000:369370. 77 Most Basque dialects have ve vowels: i, e, a, o, u. The formulation of NHV-Deletion (163) assumes the usual features to distinguish them: [+high] for i, u vs. [high] for e, a, o; [+low] for a vs. [low] for i, e, o, u; [+back] for a, o, u vs. [back] for i, e; [+round] for o, u vs. [round] for i, e, a.
76 erretan
Section 3.6 Phonological rules (163) Nonhigh Vowel Deletion (NHV-Deletion) a. Lekeitio and Zamudio [high] 0 / / V b. Ondarru [high, round] 0 / / V
151
Deletion of e in all three dialects can be observed in forms with a sequence of more than one clitic plural exponent -e; only one of them surfaces:78 (164) (165) s -aitu -e -0 / -e CL . A .2 -PRS .2. SG -CL . A . PL -CL . E .3 -CL . E . PL Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru s-aitu-e-e saitxue satxue Zamudio saitue
The variation described in (163) can be observed in cases where a clitic ending in o is followed by plural -e. For instance, the vowel in third person dative -ko deletes in Lekeitio and Zamudio, but not in Ondarru: (166) (167) dx/g/d -a -ko -e L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3 -CL . D . PL Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru Zamudio dx/g/d-a-ko-e dxake gakoe dakie
Note that plural -e surfaces as -ie in Zamudio due to i-Epenthesis (113), which inserts i before plural -e when following a consonant. NHV-Deletion therefore feeds i-Epenthesis. NHV-Deletion is also ordered before VS-Deletion (133), as illustrated by (139), repeated here: (168) (169) d -o -tz -da -s dotzeas (Zamudio) L -PRS .3. PL -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG -3. PL Underlying e-Epenthesis NHV-Deletion VS-Deletion Surface d-o-tz-da-s d-o-tze-da-s d-o-tze-a-s dotzeas
Despite preceding a vowel in hiatus, e is not deleted, which means that VS-Deletion counterfeeds NHV-Deletion.79 Deletion of a in hiatus contexts is harder to nd in auxiliaries, due mainly to the fact that there are not many cases of nonepenthetic a before a vowel. The following is a relevant example:80
variation in these forms is due to palatalization (Subsection 6.3). order of e-Epenthesis (140) with respect to NHV-Deletion is not relevant, though both rules must precede VS-Deletion (see discussion surrounding (139)). 80 The corresponding auxiliary in Zamudio is different (sintzen), due to a difference in the underlying exponent for T (see discussion of intransitive T at the beginning of Subsection 4.3).
79 The 78 Surface
152 (170) (171) Underlying Hypermetaphony NHV-Deletion n-Palatalization Surface s
Chapter 3. The Morphophonology of Basque Finite Auxiliaries -ina -e -n (Lekeitio, Ondarru) CL . A .2 -PST.2. SG -CL . A . PL -CPAST Lekeitio s-ina-e-n s-ini-e-n s-ii-en siien Ondarru s-ina-e-n N/A s-in-e-n s-i-en sien
NHV-Deletion in this auxiliary is illustrated in Ondarru. It is prevented from applying in Lekeitio due to prior application of Hypermetaphony (119).81 NHV-Deletion is another case of auxiliary-specic phonotactics. In other word classes, mid vowels are raised before and adjacent vowel in the dialects of Lekeitio and Ondarru (Hualde and Gaminde 1998:4546):82 (172) Mid Vowel Raising in nonauxiliaries in Lekeitio and Ondarru Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru berde-egi berdiegi berdiei too green tontu-egi tontuegi tontuei too stupid
According to Gaminde 2000:354, this process applies optionally to e (but not o) in Zamudio, where otherwise this type of cluster remains unchanged. On the other hand, deletion of a before a vowel in hiatus does occur in other morphological environments. This is well-attested in all Basque dialects (Hualde and Gaminde 1998:4445):83 (173) Deletion of a in nonauxiliaries in Lekeitio and Ondarru Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru baba-ak babak babak the beans (absolutive case) neska-on neskon neskon of the girls here (genitive case)
Thus, deletion of mid vowels is restricted to nite verbal contexts, and Mid Vowel Raising to other categories, but deletion of low vowels is not restricted to any particular category. To summarize, processes interacting with syllabication result in variation between the surface forms of auxiliaries in Western Biscayan (Lekeitio and Ondarru) and Eastern Biscayan (Zamudio). This variation is most apparent in cases of Glide Fortition (128) and Dissimilation (153), but can also be observed in differences in the application of vowel epenthesis. Variation in the application of NHV-Deletion (163) also follows this dialectal split, but in this case Lekeitio is exceptional among Eastern varieties in that it deletes o in (166)(167) (Gaminde 1984:vol. 1, 153154).
vowels are not deleted before glides, as illustrated in (109), (121)(122), (129), (156)(157), and (158) (159). This can be accounted for by specifying the vowel in the structural description in (163) as nonhigh, or by ordering Glide Formation (125) before NHV-Deletion. 82 The Lekeitio examples are from Hualde et al. 1994:3738. Hualde 1991a:6367 has relevant Ondarru examples not listed here. 83 The Lekeitio examples are from Hualde et al. 1994:4546. Hualde 1991a:6367, 7071 has relevant Ondarru examples not given here. Examples of this process in Zamudio can be found in Gaminde 2000:354, e.g. neska-ak neskak the girls (absolutive case).
81 Nonhigh
Section 3.6 Phonological rules 3.6.3 Other phonological processes
153
The processes discussed in this Subsection are palatalization, Low Vowel Assimilation, Flapping, and Dissimilatory Epenthesis. The rst two are common to many Basque dialects, but variation in their application account for surface differences in the auxiliaries of Lekeitio, Ondarru and Zamudio. Flapping is common to Lekeitio and Ondarru, and Dissimilatory Epenthesis is particular to Ondarru and neighboring towns. Most dialects of Basque have a process of progressive palatalization that affects certain coronal consonants preceded by a high front segment. However, the process displays a great deal of variation in terms of the feature content of the consonant, the feature content and syllabic status of the triggering segment, and morphological conditions on its application. We limit the discussion here to aspects of palatalization that are relevant to auxiliaries in Lekeitio, Ondarru and Zamudio. The reader can obtain a more complete picture of variation in palatalization and the theoretical issues involved in Chapters 2 and 4 of Hualde 1991b and Hualde 2003e:3740. In many dialects, palatalization affects l and n. Of particular interest to auxiliaries is palatalization of nasals:84 (174) n-Palatalization n [+high, back] / [+high, back]
The following is a relevant example from Lekeitio and Ondarru:85 (175) (176) g -ina -n
CL . A .1. PL -PRS .1. PL -CPST
Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru g-ina-n giian gian
In Lekeitio and Ondarru, coronal obstruents also palatalize in this environment:86 (177)
84 Hualde
Obstruent Palatalization (Lekeitio, Ondarru)87
(1991b:110) assumes an autosegmental analysis of phonological features and assimilatory processes. He formulates palatalization as spreading of a [dorsal] node from the vowel to a following [coronal] consonant. 85 Two other processes apply in the Lekeitio auxiliary: PreC-Epenthesis (98) and Hypermetaphony (119) (in that order). That palatalization is progressive is clear in the Ondarru surface form, but this fact is made opaque by Hypermetaphony in Lekeitio. The Zamudio counterpart for this auxiliary has a different exponent for T: -intz- (see beginning of Subsection 4.3). In this case, the effect of palatalization of n is undone by Nasal Place Assimilation to the following consonant (Hualde 1991b:112113, Hualde et al. 1994:2829). Words other than auxiliaries illustrate n-Palatalization in this dialect: inos ios never (Gaminde 2000:363). 86 Zamudio lacks Obstruent Palatalization, a phenomenon found in other Western Biscayan varieties. See, for instance, the distribution of palatalization across Biscayan varieties in the word ito/itto/itxo in Map 389 in Euskaltzaindia 2008. 87 Palatalized t surfaces as palatal stop tt for older speakers, and as alveolopalatal affricate tx for younger speakers. Since the only source of palatal tt in these dialects is palatalization, this type of segment has disappeared from the inventory in younger speakers. On the other hand, underlying alveolopalatal tx is common in both types of speakers (e.g. txakur dog). The change in manner involved in the output of palatalization in younger speakers (stop to affricate) can thus be seen as the result of neutralization of the distinction between tt and tx. Similarly, palatalized d surfaces as a palatal stop [] for older speakers, and as an alveolopalatal affricate [] for younger speakers (both spelled as dd). As is the case with their voiceless counterparts, this is the result of neutralization of the distinction betwen [] and [] in younger speakers. See Hualde et al. 1994:1314.
154
Chapter 3. The Morphophonology of Basque Finite Auxiliaries [sonorant, coronal] [+high, back] / [+high, back]
(178) (179)
s
CL . A .2. SG
-aitu -t -PRS .2. SG -CL . E .1. SG Ondarru satxut
Underlying Lekeitio s-aitu-t sa[y]txut
This example illustrates the fact that the segment triggering the rule need not be nucleic i, since it is a glide in this case (derived from i by Glide Formation (125)). Furthermore, the triggering glide is deleted in Ondarru.88 Obstruent Palatalization can also be triggered by a preceding palatalized sonorant consonant, as in the following Ondarru example:89 (180) s -indu
CL . A .2. SG -PST.2. SG
-s -n siddusen (Ondarru) -2. SG -CPST
Interestingly, d, as opposed to t, can only palatalize if the trigger is a sonorant consonant. See Hualde 1991b:108-111 for discussion. Although subject to many exceptions and dialectal variation, Obstruent Palatalization can also affect the dental affricate tz. In the case of auxiliaries, it undergoes palatalization in Ondarru, but not in Lekeitio:90 (181) (182) n
CL . A .1. SG
-itz -n -PST.1. SG -CPST Zamudio nitzen
Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru n-itz-n nitzan nitxan
Palatalization also applies to fricative s in Lekeitio and Ondarru (with lexical exceptions; see Hualde et al. 1994:2930), but there are no indicative auxiliaries that meet the relevant structural description. Relevant examples can be found in imperatives, such as d-o-i-su-n doxun in Ondarru (121) on page 94 (see also Hualde et al. 1994:130 for relevant forms in Lekeitio). As shown in Subsection 6.2, intervocalic voiced stops are deleted by VS-Deletion (133). Another rule affecting d in this position in Lekeitio and Ondarru is the following: (183) Flapping (Lekeitio, Ondarru) dr/V V
The rst singular clitic exponent -da (23a) in Lekeitio is always subject to apping: (184) d -o -tz -da -s dotzaras (Lekeitio) L -PRS .3. PL -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG -3. PL
of glide [y] before a palatal or alveolopalatal consonant is a general process in Ondarru. The present participle ei-ten do-IMP etxen provides an illustrative example. 89 The exponent of T in Lekeitio in this particular case is -aitu-, not -indu-. Palatalization of the cluster nd is possible across word boundaries and can thus be observed in Lekeitio auxiliaries beginning with d when preceded by a word ending in in: ei-n d-au-0 do-PRF L - PRS .3. SG - CL . E .3. SG ei ddau (Hualde et al. 1994:26). / 90 In the three dialects, the vowel following tz/tx is inserted by PreC-Epenthesis (98). The Zamudio form does not undergo Obstruent Palatalization because this dialect lacks this rule altogether.
88 Deletion
155
This Lekeitio form should be compared to its counterpart dotzeas (139) in Zamudio. Vowel epenthesis applies in both dialects, breaking the consonant cluster tzd.91 Flapping results in dotzaras in Lekeitio. Zamudio lacks this rule, and VS-Deletion results in dotzeas. As shown by this example, Flapping applies after Vowel Epenthesis. Flapping and VS-Deletion have the same contextual restriction (intervocalic), and their distribution is somewhat idiosyncratic and subject to lexical restrictions, as discussed for Lekeitio in Hualde et al. 1994:3336. Ondarru seems to be subject to this variation as well, although Flapping is more frequent.92 Unlike Lekeitio, however, the consonant in the clitic exponent -da is deleted by VS-Deletion.93 Flapping can apply across certain word boundaries, which provides relevant examples of this rule in Ondarru: (185) Topa-0 d -o / -t. (>rot) nd-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG Ive found it.
(Ondarru, Hualde 1991b:76)
Similar Lekeitio examples are given in Hualde et al. 1994:34. Another rule affecting the surface form of auxiliaries is Low Vowel Assimilation: (186) (187) Low Vowel Assimilation (LV-Assimilation; Ondarru/Zamudio) a e / [+high] C0 s -ira -n siren (Zamudio) L -PST.3. PL -CPST
Although LV-Assimilation applies in both Ondarru and Zamudio, its effects on auxiliaries are harder to observe in the former dialect.94 This is due to the fact that Ondarru LV-Assimilation can only apply across morpheme boundaries, and the target vowel must be word-nal (Hualde 1991b:6774). This limits the application of this rule to word-nal -C0 a morphemes. The only sufx that has these properties in Ondarru auxiliaries is the complementizer -la. As expected, it is realized as -le when attached to an auxiliary ending in a high vowel:95
The epenthetic vowel is a in Lekeitio and e in Zamudio (Subsection 6.2). The counterpart of this form in Ondarru lacks plural -s, which prevents insertion of exponent -da in the ergative clitic: d-o-tz-t d-o-tze-t. See Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 2 for the distribution of -s, and Subsection 3.2 in the present Chapter for the distribution of rst singular clitic allomorphs. 92 Hualde 1991b:7677 has some relevant discussion of intervocalic d in Ondarru, including Flapping, but it does not discuss VS-Deletion. 93 See Tables 3 and 6 in the Appendix. In all Ondarru forms obtained from our informant, the consonant in -da is deleted by VS-Deletion. This is also true for the Zamudio data in Gaminde 2000:373375. Due to gaps in the past monotransitive paradigms present in both sources, some of the forms in Table 6 are from de Yrizar 1992:vol. 1, 225, 595, 617620. Forms with -da in this source provide the only exceptions to VS-Deletion in these dialects in the Appendix. We assume that this is due to idiolectal variation in the application of this rule. 94 The Ondarru counterpart of Zamudio s-ira-n in (187) is s-i-n: the exponent of T does not have a low vowel in Ondarru auxiliaries (see Subsection 4.3). Even if T had the same exponent as in Zamudio (-ira-), it would not undergo LV-Assimilation, because of restrictions on this rule in Ondarru described below. 95 LV-Assimilation can also apply across certain word boundaries. Specically, it can apply across a main verbauxiliary boundary. As expected, the nal vowel in the Ondarru intransitive auxiliary d-a L-PRS .3. SG undergoes the rule when preceded by a main verb whose last vowel is high: ju-n d-a go-PRF L-PRS .3. SG jun de.
91
156 (188)
Chapter 3. The Morphophonology of Basque Finite Auxiliaries d -o -su -la dosule (Ondarru) L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .2. SG -CDECL
LV-Assimilation is present in many Basque dialects, subject to a great deal of variation in the details of its application (see Chapter 2 in Hualde 1991b). Lekeitio is quite exceptional within Biscayan, being one of four towns (isolated from each other) in this dialectal area where this rule does not apply (see Map 3 in Hualde et al. 1994:314 and Gaminde 1988, 2002:89). The last phonological rule needed to account for the surface form of auxiliaries is Dissimilatory Epenthesis, which is particular to Ondarru:96 (189) Dissimilatory Epenthesis (Ondarru) 0 a / [+high] / [+high]
This rule inserts a low vowel between two adjacent high vowels. This vowel sequence is not common either inside morphemes or across morpheme boundaries. One context that does meet the structural description of the rule arises in dative forms of names:97 (190) Underlying Surface Iaki-ri Iakiai Peru-ri Peruai
The rule also applies in auxiliaries where the output of VS-Deletion (133) results in two adjacent high vowels: (191) (192) d -o -tzu -gu L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .2. SG -CL . E .1. PL Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru d-o-tzu-gu dotzu(g)u dotzuau
Lekeitio does not have Dissimilatory Epenthesis, and (optional) VS-Deletion results in a sequence of two identical vowels.98 In Ondarru, (obligatory) VS-Deletion feeds Dissimilatory Epenthesis: (193) Underlying VS-Deletion Diss. Epenthesis Surface d-o-tzu-gu d-o-tzu-u d-o-tzu-au dotzuau
Furthermore, the resulting vowel cluster is resyllabied as [u.aw].

Surface forms of auxiliaries in the neighboring town of Berriatua suggest that this rule applies in this variety as well (Aramaio 2001:1718, 21, Hualde 2006:453). 97 The dative sufx is -ri. The ap r is often deleted intervocalically in Ondarru, under certain conditions that are not clear to us. 98 Sequences of identical vowels are common in Lekeitio due to a total assimilatory process unique to this variety. See discussion at the end of Subsection 6.5.
96
157
Table 3.10: Phonological rules Lekeitio Diphthong Raising PreC-Epenthesis Hypermetaphony Syllabication Glide Formation Glide Fortition s-Epenthesis Vowel Epenthesis Flapping NHV-Deletion i-Epenthesis r-Epenthesis VS-Deletion Dissimilatory Epenthesis Dissimilation LV-Assimilation n-Palatalization Obstruent Palatalization 3.6.4 Rule interaction Table 3.10 provides a list of all phonological rules discussed up to this point, showing what dialect they apply in.99 Several rules apply in specic derivational order, as discussed throughout this Section. These derivational interactions are indicated with arrows in the Table.100 As is apparent in the table, variation can be due to presence or absence of particular rules in the dialects, but not to differences in the order of rule application. Interaction among these rules is mostly nonopaque. Specically, most pairs of rules that are necessarily ordered exhibit a feeding relation. Bleeding is illustrated by the relation between Hypermetaphony and NHV-Deletion: the former prevents the latter from applying in some cases (see discussion below (171)). Nevertheless, we have described four different cases of opaque rule interaction. The rst two are counterfeeding relations: r-Epenthesis counterfeeds i-Epenthesis, and VS-Deletion counterfeeds NHV-Deletion (see discussion around (113)(114) and (168), respectively). In both cases, the second rule in a potential feeding relation fails to apply. A different type of opaque interaction is observed between Vowel Epenthesis and VS-Deletion. The two rules are in a clear feeding relation. Vowel Epenthesis inserts a vowel between two consonants, which in some cases can result in the conguration CVCV; this creates a potential context for VS-Deletion, which deletes voiced stops between vowels. As illustrated in (137)
Epenthesis in the table conates a-Epenthesis (136) from Lekeitio and Ondarru with e-Epenthesis from Zamudio. The check mark for Hypermetaphony in Ondarru is placed between parenthesis because although this rule does apply in this dialect, it does not in auxiliaries (see footnote 61). 100 We do not make any claim about derivational order that is not entailed by the arrows in this table.
99 Vowel
Ondarru
Zamudio
( )
158
(138), the form dotzau from underlying d-o-tz-gu shows that both rules indeed apply. Although this is a feeding relation, the result is opaque: on the surface, one of the consonants (g) that triggered the insertion of epenthetic a is absent because of later application of VS-Deletion.101 Finally, Dissimilation also feeds LV-Assimilation in an opaque way: as discussed in footnote 75, the auxiliary neuen is an apparent exception to Dissimilation because the latter rule feeds LVAssimilation in this auxiliary, which in turn undoes the effect of Dissimilation. 3.6.5 Rules that apply across word boundaries Before we conclude this Section, we review a number of phonological processes that apply across the word boundary between the auxiliary and the preceding word. These are not apparent in any citation form given here, or in the data in the Appendix. However, their effect is visible in many of the full sentence examples given throughout this book. This is especially true for Ondarru, where several processes that are optional in other varieties are obligatory. In most Basque dialects, a devoicing rule affects a voiced stop when preceded by a voiceless obstruent. This rule applies across word boundaries in certain syntactic contexts, with specic restrictions having to do with the features of both the rst and second consonant in the cluster Hualde (2003e:4043). With respect to auxiliaries in the dialects studied here, the rule applies optionally in those that start with a voiced stop when preceded by the negative word es.102 The following are relevant examples from Zamudio: (194) Ollo-ak, orr-ek es d -ira (>tire) orr-en arin ei-ten sar. chicken-ABS . PL that-ABS . PL not L -PRS .3. PL that-ABS . SG quickly do-IMP old Chickens, they dont grow old so quickly. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:178) Len ur-ik es g -endu -n (>kendun) euk-i etze-atan. before water-PART not CL . E .1. PL -PST.3. SG -CPST have-PRF house-IN . PL Before, we didnt use to have water in the houses. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:77)
(195)
The process also applies to auxiliaries optionally in Lekeitio and Ondarru, but g is never devoiced:103 (196) Eur-ak es d -i -s (>tis) ju-n Bilbo-a. they-ABS . PL not L -PRS .3. PL -3. PL go-PRF Bilbao-ALL They havent gone to Bilbao. Gu-0 es g / -as (>gas/*kas) ju-n Bilbo-a. we-ABS not CL . A .1. PL -PRS .1. PS go-PRF Bilbao-ALL
(Ondarru)
(197)
(2007) calls this type of opaque interaction self-destructive feeding: Vowel Epenthesis creates a context in which VS-Deletion applies, but the latter destroys the context that allows the former to apply. 102 Auxiliaries are typically immediately preceded by a participle in afrmative sentences and by negative es in negative sentences. Only a few modal particles (Section 6 in Chapter 2) can intervene between the participle/es and the auxiliary. Participles and modal particles never end in a voiceless consonant, so examples of devoicing in auxiliaries are limited to cases when they are preceded by negative es. Auxiliaries that can be used as main verbs (see Footnote 46 in the present Chapter) undergo devoicing when following a word ending in a voiceless stop (see Hualde 2003e:40 and Hualde et al. 1994:32 for examples.) 103 This is a general constraint on the application of this rule across word boundaries in both dialects (Hualde 2003e:42, Hualde et al. 1994:3233, 46).
101 Bakovi c
Section 3.6 Phonological rules We havent gone to Bilbao.
159 (Ondarru)
Although bilabial b is devoiced across word boundaries, no auxiliary in this dialect starts with this vowel.104 A number of deletion processes apply optionally in the participle-auxiliary boundary in Lekeitio (Hualde et al. 1994:48) and Zamudio. First, the nal -n present in several participle sufxes is deleted when preceding a vowel-initial auxiliary: (198) Dxa-n 0 / -eu -n. (>dxa eban) eat-PRF CL . E .3. SG -PST.3. SG -CPST She ate.
(199)
Bonete-agas jo-ten 0 -o / -ku -0 / n (>jote oskun). hat-COM . SG hit-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL .1. PL -CL . E .3. SG -CPST He used to hit us with his hat. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:285)
Participle-nal -n can also be deleted before certain consonant-initial auxiliaries:105 (200) a-n eo-ten s -a -n (>eote san) katxarru-aas. there-IN be-IMP L -PST.3. SG -CPST thing-COM . SG with the thing that used to be there (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:230) Urreski-ek ekar-ten s -endu -s -n. (>ekarte sendusen) hazelnut-ABS . PL bring-IMP CL . E .2. SG -PST.3. PL -3. PL -CPST You(Sg) brought the hazelnuts. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:151)
(201)
Most d-initial auxiliaries also trigger deletion of participle-nal -n, which feeds obligatory deletion of d by VS-Deletion (133):106 (202) Esa-n d -o -t. (>esa ot) say-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG Ive said so.
(203)
Lauso-a esa-ten d -o -tz -u (>esate otzu) gu-k. lauso-ABS . SG say-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .1. PL we-ERG We call it lauso.107 (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:249)
other complementizers (Section 6 in Chapter 2) the conditional particle ba if is left-adjacent to the auxiliary, and always written as part of the same word, e.g. Ondarru banas: ba-n-as if-CL . A .1. SG - PRS .1. SG. We assume that ba is in fact not under the same X max as the auxiliary. The initial consonant in this particle undergoes devoicing given the right context (Hualde 2003e:42, Hualde et al. 1994:46). 105 This deletion is common before auxiliaries starting with s and d (see examples below). Hualde et al. 1994:48 only describes deletion of -n before vowels and d, but we have found at least one example of deletion before s in that work, reported below. 106 According to Hualde et al. 1994:48, deletion of participle-nal -n does not apply in Lekeitio before the auxiliaries d-o-gu, d-au-0, and d-au-0-e (>dabe), which are similar to d-o-t in (202) with the exception of the ergative clitic, which / / is rst plural, third singular, and third plural, respectively, in these auxiliaries. We have not found any examples of deletion of -n before these three auxiliaries in Zamudio in Gaminde 2000; this dialect seems to have this idiosyncratic restriction as well. 107 This sentence is given as part of a description of squinting (lauso in Zamudio) in Gaminde 2000:249.
104 Unlike
160
Auxiliary-initial vowels are deleted optionally after a vowel in Zamudio:108 (204) Bota-0 / 0 / -eu -n (>uen) throw-PRF CL . E .3. SG -PST.3. SG -CPST satz-a olan a-ra karkaba-ra. manure-ABS . SG this.way there-ALL . SG trench-ALL . SG He threw the manure this way there into the trench. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:408)
This process can be fed by deletion of participle-nal -n: (205) Baso-ari su-0 / forest-DAT. SG re-ABS emo-ten 0 / -o -tz -n. (>emote tzen) give-IMP CL . E .3. SG -PST.3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CPAST He used to set the forest on re. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:332) Ori-0 / txarriboda dusti-etan that-ABS . SG pig.slaughter.feast all-ALL . PL kante-tan 0 / -eu -n (>kanteta uen) ar-ek. sing-PRF CL . E .3. SG -PST.3. SG -CPST that-ERG . SG He used to sing that at all pig slaughter feasts. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:227)
(206)
The following example from Zamudio illustrates these deletion processes interacting in the same auxiliary: deletion of participle-nal -n (ite dosu), followed by deletion of auxiliary-initial d- (VSDeletion, ite osu), followed by deletion of auxiliary-initial vowel (ite su). (207) Barre i-ten d -o -su? (>ite su) laugh do-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG Do you(Sg) laugh?
All these deletion processes also apply in Ondarru. The following are relevant examples:109 (208) Deletion of participle-nal -n before a consonant A-n eo-ten s -a -n. (>eote san/*eoten san) there-IN be-IMP L -PST.3. SG -CPST He used to be there. Deletion of auxiliary-initial vowel after a vowel Bota-0 / 0 / -eu -n. (>ban/*eban) throw-PRF CL . E .3. SG -PST.3. SG -CPST He threw it. Deletion of participle-nal -n followed by deletion of auxiliary-initial vowel
(Ondarru)
(209)
(Ondarru)
(210)
108 Note
that the vowel preceding the past tense complementizer -n on the surface in the auxiliary in (204) is inserted by PreC-Epenthesis (Subsection 6.1). 109 Deletion of participle-nal -n does not apply before the auxiliaries d-o-t, d-o-gu, d-au-0 and d-a-u-0 (>dabe; see / / footnote 106 for a similar restriction in Lekeitio. When following a vowel, the initial d is typically apped, as in (185).
Section 3.6 Phonological rules Ja-n 0 / -eu -n. (>ja ban/*jan eban/*ja eban) eat-PRF CL . E .3. SG -PST.3. SG -CPST He ate. (211)
161
(Ondarru)
Deletion of participle-nal -n followed by VS-Deletion, followed by deletion of auxiliary-initial vowel Barre-0 e-txen d -o / -su. (>etxe su/*etxen dosu/*etxe osu) laugh-ABS do-IMP L -PRS .3. SG -CL .2. SG You(Sg) laugh. (Ondarru)
Unlike the other two dialects, these deletion rules are obligatory in Ondarru. As shown above, auxiliary-initial vowels are deleted in Ondarru and Zamudio (optionally in the latter). In contrast, in Lekeitio, auxiliary-initial vowels undergo an optional total assimilatory process to an immediately preceding vowel:110 (212) / -eu -n. (>uban) Apur-tu 0 break-PRF CL . E .3. SG -PST.3. SG -CPST He broke it.
This rule can be fed by deletion of participle-nal -n: (213) Dxa-n 0 / -eu -n. (>dxa aban) eat-PRF CL . E .3. SG -PST.3. SG -CPST He ate.
Although the other processes discussed in this subsection are common to many Biscayan varieties, this assimilatory process is unique to Lekeitio in this dialectal area.
3.6.6 Summary To conclude this section, dialectal variation in the surface forms of auxiliaries is due to two main factors: differences in vocabulary entries and Impoverishment rules, and differences in the application of several phonological rules (as opposed to rule order in phonological rules, which is invariant in the three dialects). A lot of this variation is due to the dialectal split between Western (Zamudio) and Eastern (Lekeitio and Ondarru) subdialects of Biscayan, but we have also discussed several cases of phonological phenomena particular to specic towns, such as Dissimilatory Epenthesis in Ondarru, and the absence of LV-Assimilation in Lekeitio. Several differences are found as well among the three dialects in rules applying across word boundaries; however, these processes are not as well-documented in the literature, and it is not clear to what extent these differences reect any larger dialectal subdivisions in Biscayan.
process applies in other syntactic contexts as well. See Hualde and Elordieta 1992, Hualde et al. 1994:41 42, Elordieta 1997, Samuels 2010. As noted in Hualde et al. 1994:41, the vowel o does not undergo assimilation. As a result, auxiliaries starting with d-o- can undergo VS-Deletion when preceded by a vowel, but not assimilation. For instance, underlying esa-n d-o-t in (202) can surface as esaot, but not as *esoot.
110 This
162 3.7 Conclusion
The analysis of the spellout of Basque nite auxiliaries offered in this Chapter provides support for several proposals in this book. With respect to Basque grammar, it is a crucial part of the implementation of the hypothesis that auxiliary morphemes cross-referencing arguments in the clause are both of the pronominal clitic and the agreement type. The analysis in this Chapter shows that this claim and others concerning the morphosyntax of nite auxiliaries is compatible with the surface forms of auxiliaries in three separate varieties of Biscayan. Basque verbal morphology is subject to a great deal of dialectal variation, and the proposals defended here can easily be checked against auxiliary systems in other varieties. We expect that a lot of this variation can be accounted for in terms of changes in the postsyntactic rule system allowed by our implementation of the theory of DM. With respect to morphological theory, we make several specic claims concerning the workings of Vocabulary Insertion. These nd empirical support in the phenomena studied in this Chapter, such as positional neutralization due to Ergative Metathesis, and the realization of multiple agreement in Lekeitio ditransitive auxiliaries. More generally, we show in this Chapter that the complex patterns of neutralizations and allomorphy found in the surface form of Basque auxiliaries are compatible with central theoretical desiderata in the framework of DM. In particular, as a morpheme-based realizational theory, DM rejects the existence of multiple exponence: features in a word are organized into morphemes, and each can only be referred to at VI (discharged) only once. The Basque auxiliary paradigm is replete with apparent cases of multiple exponence, and our DM-based analysis meets the challenge of accounting for them in a theoretically constrained way, both in terms of the syntactic distinction between pronominal clitics and agreement, and in terms of contextual restrictions on the insertion of exponents in terminal nodes. At the same time, the realizational aspects of the theory allow us to explain all the patterns of neutralization found in the paradigm, in terms of Impoverishment rules and underspecication in the MFS of vocabulary entries.
Section 3.7 Conclusion references linking section on paradigmatic markedness and participant dissimilation
163
Chapter 4 Deletion Operations Targeting Morphological Markedness
Mismatches between syntax and morphology can occur, when for example, a 2nd person ergative pronoun is present in a clause, and indeed everything about the clause reects the syntactic activity of this argument within the syntax and semantics, but nonetheless the verb agreement for 2nd person is seemingly mysteriously missing from its expected place on the auxiliary verb. This chapter focuses on feature-deletion and terminal-deletion operations (called impoverishment and obliteration, respectively) that are present with the post-syntactic markedness module, which in our overall serial and modular architecture is ordered before linearization and vocabulary insertion. We introduce the theoretical background for impoverishment and obliteration in 1 and 4 and exemplify the phenomenon of syntagmatic impoverishment with relatively simple cases in Sections 2 and 3. The core of the discussion focuses on two major phenomena found throughout Biscayan Basque, and in particular in the three varieties we focus on in this book: Participant Dissimilation and Plural Clitic Impoverishment. These are presented in Sections 5 and 6. In the discussion of Participant Dissimilation, two related, though distinct operations are proposed: impoverishment and obliteration. These two can be distinguished in their effect on the voice-sensitive allomorphy within the auxiliary root itself: the have/be feature in Basque, discussed in Chapter 3, Section 4.1. 4.1 Distinctions among types of postsyntactic deletion operations We localize impoverishment within the Markedness Module. Markedness refers to morphosyntactic (abstract) markedness, not to the Vocabulary Items themselves (and whether they are, say, phonologically null or not). Moreover, morphosyntactic markedness of specic features may be context-sensitive; for example, [participant] may only be marked in the context of another [participant] node. Finally, it is not always the case that the positive value of a feature is the marked value. There are four types of distinctions we would like to introduce at the outset: (1) markedness-targeted impoverishment absolute neutralization paradigmatic structural description markedness-triggered obliteration contextual neutralization syntagmatic structural description
Markedness-targeted vs. markedness-triggered deletion refers to the structural change. This distinction, discussed at length in Nevins (2011), refers to whether a deletion operation whose structural description mentions a marked feature-value [ F] in fact deletes [ F] itself (markednesstargeted), or whether it deletes an orthogonal feature to [F], e.g. [ G]. For example, the neutral165
166
Chapter 4. Deletion Operations Targeting Morphological Markedness
ization of the dual/plural distinction for a particular class of nouns is markedness-targeted, where [ F] is [ augmented]. By contrast, the frequent crosslinguistic neutralization of gender distinctions in the 1st person is a case of markedness-triggered impoverishment, where [ F] is [+author] and [G] is [feminine]. Impoverishment vs. Obliteration refers to the structural change. This distinction, discussed in Arregi and Nevins (2007), Calabrese (2010), and Pescarini (2010), refers to whether a single feature is deleted, or whether the entire node containing the feature is deleted. For example, impoverishment might delete the feature [ F] on a clitic, whereas obliteration would delete the entire clitic. Most DM-style operations (e.g. fusion, metathesis) do not effect a structural change that targets individual features. Impoverishment is thus rather unique in so doing.1 It is important to note in what follows that a locus of variation in the structural change of repair operations to syntagmatic markedness, therefore, may be at the level of individual features (as in Bonets (1991) original investigation of impoverishment operations), or may involve deletion of the entire terminal. Absolute neutralization vs. contextual neutralization refers to the structural description. This distinction, discussed in Calabrese (2008), refers to whether a feature like [ F] is systematically deleted in a language, or whether this feature is only deleted in certain specic contexts. For example, the feature [ colloquial] is never distinguished in the plural 2nd person in Basque. By contrast, the feature [ singular] is neutralized in Basque in very specic contexts. Paradigmatic vs. syntagmatic will be discussed at length in Sections 2 and 3. The reason for extensive emphasis and exemplication of the latter is that syntagmatic markedness has received less overall attention in studies of neutralization perhaps because it takes more study of various external contexts in order to detect and because our two principal case studies in Sections 5 and 6 are syntagmatic in nature. 4.2 Paradigmatic Markedness 4.2.1 Formal/Colloquial Neutralization We now discuss a pattern found throughout all of Basque. Looking solely at the 2nd person pronouns, one nds three of them (used to express four categories): (2) singular plural colloquial hi zu-ek formal zu zu-ek
The syncretism in the righthand column is absolute: there is never a formal/colloquial distinction, and paradigmatic: it affects the inventory of pronouns without reference to their external morphosyntactic environment. In terms of markedness-triggering, there are fewer distinctions in the category [singular]. (In other words, under markedness theory, one would not expect the
also may involve insertion of individual features e.g. the operations that insert default values, such as Halle and Marantzs (1994) rules of inserting inectional class features. In fact, our approach to Case (outlined in Chapters 1 and 2) treats absolutive as a default case, which arguably could be implemented in terms of it not being assigned in the syntax, but an epenthetic" post-syntactic feature-insertion (of [-motion]), in the sense of Trommer (2010).
1 Redundancy rules
Section 4.2 Paradigmatic Markedness
167
mirror image, with a formal/colloquial distinction only in the plural, but not in the singular.) As for the specic feature that encodes the formal/colloquial distinction, we propose [ formal]. (3) a. b. c. In Marked environment [+plural], [ formal] 0 / hi [+participant, -formal] zu [+participant]
4.2.2 Paradigmatic Impoverishment of the [+participant] feature on 1sg clitics As detailed extensively in the Vocabulary Items in Chapter 3, the morphology of agreement on T refers to the feature [+participant]. While this feature is therefore, by hypothesis, present in the syntax in order for the agreement relation between T and the clitic to occur, it is subsequently impoverished from all 1sg clitics at the outset of the Impoverishment block. (By hypothesis, paradigmatic and absolute neutralizations occur ordered before all other impoverishment rules). (4) [+Author,+Sg, +Participant]Cl [+Author,+Sg]Cl
This is a rule of paradigmatic impoverishment, that does not refer to the external morphosyntactic context of the clitic at all. Moreover, it leaves the presence of [+participant] on Agreement-in-T intact.2 The evidence for [+participant] remaining as the result of 1sg agreement on T is evident from natural class patterning of 1sg with 1pl, 2sg, anf 2pl. For example, the impoverishment rule affecting T called Past Participant Impoverishment in Lekeito (51) in Chapter 3, Section 4.2 renders Past and Present auxiliaries identical for all forms agreeing with a 1/2 sg/pl absolutive. Similarly, in Ondarru. indu is the realization of [+participant] agreement on T in the past, which includes the 1sg forms (see (70) in Chapter 3, Section 4.3). Interestingly, the presence of the feature-value [+participant] is predictable" from the presence of [+author], since the latter entails the former in our system of person features.3 Nonetheless, the logical predictability of this feature does not entail anything about its morphosyntactic behavior: [+participant] is always predictable" from the presence of [+author], but there is a clear distinction between the processes that apply prior to the impoverishment in (4) and crucially require the presence of [+participant], such as agreement (which includes phi-copy), and those that apply after it and crucially require the absence of [+participant], such as the dissimilatory rule of [+participant] deletion discussed in Section 5 below. First, the rule of [+Participant]-dissimilation impoverishes or obliterates one of two clitics when there are two [+participant] clitics on the same auxiliary, thereby potentially affecting 2nd person or 1st plural clitics. However, it is never triggered by or targets 1sg clitics. This otherwise puzzling instance of non-participation in the rule is simply explained if 1sg clitics lack the feature that induces dissimilation.
a feature cross-referencing a single argument that is deleted at one site but not another defeats the claim that apparent Multiple Exponence" throughout the Basque auxiliary represents some kind of autosegmental linkage of a single feature to multiple positions. 3 Moreover, the presence of [+participant] is even more predictable" from the presence of [+author,+sg], since a singular group with only the author must contain exclusively participants, while a [sg] group containing the author might include some non-participants. Interesting as this may be, the text demonstrates that this kind of predictability is not relevant to the lifecycle of this morphosyntactic feature, which is present at one point in the derivation and absent thereafter.
2 Impoverishment of
168
Second, the rule of Plural-impoverishment in Section 6 is a syntagmatic impoverishment rule whose environment includes the set of [+participant] clitics, but missing from the list of triggers is 1sg clitics; as shown in Table 4.1, number distinctions among absolutive and dative clitics are intact in the environment of 1sg ergatives but neutralized in the environment of 1pl and 2nd person clitics. We therefore note that there are three natural classes of clitics in the patterns above: 1sg clitics, 1pl and 2nd person clitics, and 3rd person clitics. These are easily distinguished in a system with the present features: (5) a. b. c. Natural class including 1sg: [+author] Natural class including 1pl and 2sg,pl: [+participant] Natural including 3sg,3pl: [author, participant]
By contrast, a system that lacked [ author], containing instead features such as [ me, you] (or their equivalents), e.g. Anderson (1992) and Bobaljik (2008a), would not be able to capture these natural classes. Note that the [+participant] feature is referred to extensively throughout the grammar of Basque, not only in the impoverishement rules in this chapter. Consider, for example, the Vocabulary Items in Chapter 3, Section 4.2, Table 3.5 (among other examples), which group 1pl, 2sg, 2pl to the exclusion of 1sg and 3sg/pl. Note also the impoverishment rule (68) in Ondarru (Chapter 3, Section 4.3), which affect 3pl agreement on a T node in the presence of an ergative [+participant] clitic again, excluding 1sg clitics. Moreover, in Chapter 5, Section 4.1, we note a restriction on the structural description ergative metathesis in example (94) that again refers to [+participant], excluding 1sg clitics. In sum, the phenomenon of 1pl and 2sg/2pl clitics patterning has a natural class for conditioning and undergoing rules of impoverishment, Vocabulary Insertion, and metathesis have independent repercussions throughout the grammar in a number of seemingly distinct places, thereby robustly supporting the posited absolute neutralization rule effecting [+participant]-deletion in the context of a [+author,+singular] clitic. 4.3 Syntagmatic markedness 4.3.1 Dissimilatory deletion A case of syntagmatic markedness, where a conguration involving the structural description of two nodes whose structural change is a markedness-triggered deletion can be found in the dissimilative impoverishment of the dual in Western Warlpiri, described by Hale (1973). This type of impoverishment enacts deletion under adjacent identity, even though the affected feature is not the one causing the dissimilatory effect. Like Basque, Warlpiri has clitics on the its auxiliary that crossreference ubject and object. Warlpiri has distinct clitics for 1st person dual subjects and 1st person plural subjects: 1st person dual is realized by a single fused clitic while 1st person plural is realized by distinct 1st person and plural number morphemes. (6) and (7) show the ordinary distinct marking of dual and plural. (6) ngaju manu yali ka-rlijarra purla-mi I and that one are shoutI and that pres.impf.aux-1 EXCL . SUBJ . DL shout-nonpast ing" Hale (1973:p.320)
Section 4.3 Syntagmatic markedness (7)
169
nganimpa-rlu ka-rna-ngku-lu nyuntu nya-nyi We (plu1. PL - ERG PRES . IMPF. AUX -1 EXCL . SUBJ -2 OBJ - PL . SUBJ 2 SG see-nonpast ral) see you (singular)" Hale (1973:p.328)
Hale (1973) observes that whenever there is a dual clitic on the same auxiliary node as another nonsingular clitic, the dual is neutralized and assumes the form of the plural. Thus in (8) although the pronouns remain dual, the clitics do not. (8) (9) ngajarra-rlu ka-rlijarra-ngku-pala nyumpala nya-nyi We two see you two" *1. DL - ERG PRES . IMPF. AUX -1. DL -2 DL . OBJ 2 DL see-nonpast ngajarra-rlu ka-rna-lu-nyarra nyumpala nya-nyi We two 1 DL - ERG PRES . IMPF. AUX -1 SUBJ - PL . SUBJ -2 PL . OBJ 2 DL see-nonpast see you two" Hale (1973:p.330)
We have seen in (7) that when a dual argument is the only non-singular clitic, it is realized by a specialized dual clitic form. However, when there are two dual arguments, the doubly-marked presence of both is enough to trigger an impoverishment rule that renders the realization of dual arguments as identical to that of corresponding plural arguments (see Noyer (2001:p. 769), Evidently, the combination of two such [dual] features in Warlpiri surpasses a language-specic limit on informational richness"). By hypothesis, the feature distinguishing dual from plural is [ augmented], where the former is [augmented] (see Harbour (2006), Nevins (2011)). Thus, in (9), while a 1st-subject dual clitic and a 2nd-object dual clitic would be expected and would be able to surface independently of each other, two duals cannot be realized together, due to the markednessbased dissimilatory impoverishment rule in (10): (10) Delete [augmented] on a [singular] clitic when on the same M-Word as another [singular] clitic
While the conditioning context is the syntagmatically-marked conguration of two [singular] clitics, the structural change affects an orthogonal feature: [augmented]. This rule, stated over abstract binary features, effects a neutralization of the dual/plural distinction based on surrounding context within the local domain of the M-Word. This type of triggering of impoverishment rules by identical featural specication on distinct nodes within the M-Word will rear its head again in the case of Participant Dissimilation discussed in Section 5 is similar. 4.3.2 3/3 effects Third Plural Clitic Impoverishment in Ondarru, discussed in Section 6 below, is analogous to 3/3 effects in Romance, to which we now turn. Certain syncretic phenomena in Romance third person clitic combinations provide evidence that clustering of the feature [Participant] results in a marked conguration, even though this feature by itself is not marked. Consider rst Spanish spurious se (Perlmutter 1971:2025). The Spanish third person dative clitic is le in the singular and les in the plural. When followed by a third person accusative clitic in a cluster, the dative clitic is realized as impersonal se:4
4 See
Nevins 2007:307310 for evidence that this is impersonal se, not its reexive homophone.
170 (11)
Chapter 4. Deletion Operations Targeting Morphological Markedness Spurious se in Spanish Juan {se/*le} lo dio a l. Juan CL . D CL . ACC gave to him Juan gave it to him.
(Spanish)
Nevins 2007:274283 provides arguments that this is a case of Impoverishment: both clitics in the cluster are [Participant], which triggers deletion of person features in the dative clitic.5 A parallel phenomenon is found in the same clitic cluster in Italian. The dative clitic in this language is [Li] (gli; [Le] before l or n by a general process that applies to clitics) in the masculine singular, and [le] in the feminine singular. In the context of a third person accusative clitic, the dative neutralizes gender in favor of the masculine form: (12) Neutralization of gender in Italian clitic clusters [Le/*le] -lo presto. CL . D -CL . ACC lend.PRS .1. SG I lend it to him/her.
(Italian, Pescarini 2010)
What the Spanish and Italian examples have in common is that Impoverishment is triggered in combinations of third person clitics. Although the feature [Participant] by itself is not marked, the combination of more than one morpheme with this feature is marked, which triggers deletion (i.e. neutralization) of different features in these languages: the [Participant] feature itself in Spanish, and gender in Italian. As we show in Section 6 below, it results in deletion of number features in Ondarru Basque.
4.4 On the Nonlinearity of Impoverishment Having outlined a number of properties of impoverishment rules in the section above, we now take a brief interlude in order to draw attention to a particular property that all of the impoverishment rules this chapter do not possess. While syntagmatic rules refer to context outside the terminal node whose features are being deleted, even this syntagmatic impoverishment has limits on how much it can see: specically, it cannot look outside the M-word. On the other hand, while the domain for these neutralization rules (e.g. their Structural Description) is features on other morphemes in the same M-word, it is notable that none of them need to refer to linear order. We contend that this is not an accident: in our serial and modular architecture, impoverishment is ordered at a point in the derivation before linearization of terminals, and so there simply is no linear order to refer to. This contrasts with processes that apply after Linearization, such as linear-order-altering Metathesis and determination of allomorphy at Vocabulary Insertion. As argued in Chapters 3 and 5, respectively, these operations are crucially sensitive to linear (adjacency) relations. As discussed in Section 5 below, the fact that Impoverishment is insensitive to linear relations is conrmed by different instances of this rule in Basque clitics.
se also neutralizes number distinctions, but this is a general property of Spanish se, and not a direct consequence of Impoverishment in clitic clusters.
5 Spurious
Section 4.5 Participant Dissimilation 4.5 Participant Dissimilation
171
Participant Dissimilation in several Biscayan Basque varieties provides an illustration of Impoverishment due to syntagmatic markedness. Subject to a lot of variation, it is a dissimilatory process targeting auxiliaries with more than one participant clitic. The phenomenon was rst discussed in the generative literature in Arregi and Nevins 2007, and has been described for several Biscayan varieties in Gaminde 1982, 1983, 2000, Laka et al. 2008, and de Yrizar 1992. The following are two illustrative examples from two different varieties: (13) Participant Dissimilation in Ondarru Su-k gu-ri liburu-0 emo-0 / / you(Sg)-ERG us-DAT book-ABS give-PRF d -o -su (>su) / *d -o -ku -su. (>skusu) L - PRS .3. SG -CL . E .2. SG / L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D.1. PL -CL . E .2. SG You(Sg) have given us the book.
(Ondarru)
(14)
Participant Dissimilation in Zamudio -aitu -u eskola-ra. -ara / *s Eroa-n bear s take-NF must CL . A .2. SG -PRS .2. SG / CL . A .2. SG -PRS .2. SG -CL . E .1. PL school-ALL . SG We have to take you(Sg) to school. (Zamudio)
Part of the variation observed in the phenomenon has to do with the material that is deleted. In both examples above, dissimilation results in deletion of an entire clitic terminal node. In Ondarru, a rst plural dative clitic is deleted in the context of a second singular ergative, and in Zamudio deletion targets a rst plural ergative in the context of second singular absolutive. We refer to this particular kind of Impoverishment that deletes an entire morpheme as Obliteration. We also discuss in this Section cases of Participant Dissimilation that only delete the feature [+Participant], which we refer to simply as Impoverishment. Although in both types of Participant Dissimilation the net result is the absence of an overt exponent for one of the clitics, the distinction between Impoverishment of a feature and Obliteration of a terminal node is crucial in our analysis, and evidence that this is the right interpretation of these facts is provided in our accounts of these and other instantiations of Participant Dissimilation below. That this is a case of paradigmatic markedness is shown by the fact that the presence of a triggering clitic is necessary for Participant Dissimilation to apply. Thus, Obliteration of a rst plural dative clitic in Ondarru is not possible in the absence of a triggering ergative clitic: (15) No Participant Dissimilation in the absence of triggering clitic Gu-ri liburu-0 gusta-ten / erg us-DAT book-ABS like-IMP g -a -ku (>gasku) / *d -a. L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .1. PL / L -PRS .3. SG We like the book.
(Ondarru)
As in other cases of syntagmatic markedness, the phenomenon illustrates both markedness-targeted and markedness-triggered Impoverishment. Both the targeted and the triggering nodes are specied as [+Participant] and therefore marked. The presence of [+Participant] on both nodes is
172
crucial. For instance, Ondarru (13) contrasts minimally with sentences where either the ergative or the dative clitics are third person: (16) No Participant Dissimilation in the context of third person ergative Ber-ak gu-ri liburu-0 emo-0 / / he-ERG . SG us-DAT book-ABS give-PRF d -o -ku -0 / (>sku) / *d -au -0. / L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .1. PL -CL - E .3. SG / L - PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG You(Sg) have given us the book.
(Ondarru)
(17)
No Participant Dissimilation in the context of third person dative Su-k ber-ai liburu-0 emo-0 / / you(Sg)-ERG him-DAT. SG book-ABS give-PRF d -o -tz -su (>tzasu) / *d -o -su. (>su) L - PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .2. SG / L - PRS .3. SG -CL . E .2. SG You(Sg) have given us the book. (Ondarru)
As illustrated in these examples, the dative clitic can only be deleted if it is participant, and it must be in the context of another participant clitic. Another important property of Participant Dissimilation is that, despite the fact that it results in clitic Impoverishment or Obliteration, pro-drop is allowed for the affected clitic. For instance, the rst plural dative argument in (13) can be dropped, given the right context, despite the absence of a clitic correlate in the auxiliary. This might be seen as evidence for the postsyntactic nature of Participant Dissimilation: the clitic is present with the right features in the syntax, which can then license a pro argument. However, the force of this argument is weakened by the fact, discussed in Subsection 4.1, that neither clitic-doubling nor agreement are necessary conditions for pro-drop in Basque. Despite the variation found in the phenomenon, all cases of Participant Dissimilation have these properties. We thus propose the following general schema for this rule in Biscayan: (18) Participant Dissimilation a. Structural Description: an auxiliary with two morphemes Cl1 and Cl2 specied as [+Participant]. b. Structural Change: (i) Delete [+Participant] in Cl1 , or (ii) Delete Cl1.
Variation in its application depends on two separate factors. First, the effect of the rule can be limited to impoverishment of the feature [+Participant] (18bi), or it can result in Obliteration of the entire node (18bii). The latter is illustrated in the Ondarru and Zamudio auxiliaries above, and examples of the former are given in Subsections 5.25.3 below. Second, particular dialects may impose further conditions on both the targeted morpheme M1 and the triggering morpheme M2 in terms of their case or -features. For instance, as discussed below, the targeted morpheme in Ondarru is always rst person, and the triggering morpheme is ergative. Further specication of person on the triggering morpheme is not necessary: it must be rst or second person (participant), but cannot have the same person as the targeted morpheme, due to the restriction on combinations
Section 4.5 Participant Dissimilation
173
of rst with rst and second with second discussed in Subsection 4.5 in Chapter 1. For instance, Obliteration of the rst plural dative clitic in (13) does not occur in the context of a rst plural ergative due to the fact that this is an impossible combination of clitics in all Basque dialects. Although Participant Dissimilation has to do with participant clitics, it never targets auxiliaries with rst singular clitics. For instance, Obliteration is not possible in the counterpart of Ondarru (13) with a rst singular dative clitic: (19) No Participant Dissimilation in the context of rst singular Su-k ni-ri liburu-0 emo-0 / / you(Sg)-ERG me-DAT book-ABS give-PRF d -o -t -su (>stasu) / *d -o -su. (>su) L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .1. SG -CL . E .2. SG / L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .2. SG You(Sg) have given me the book. (Ondarru)
Although this restriction is true of all instantiations of Participant Dissimilation in Biscayan, it is not stated as part of the general schema in (18) because it is accounted for by the following Impoverishment rule proposed in Chapter 3: (20) First Singular Clitic Impoverishment a. Structural Description: a clitic Cl specied as [+Participant, +Author, +Singular]. b. Structural Change: Cl [+Author, +Singular].
This rule deletes the [+Participant] feature from rst singular clitics, and independent evidence for it is presented in Section 4 in Chapter 3, as well as Section 6 below. We propose that it applies before Participant Dissimilation in the Markedness Component, which accounts for the absence of Participant Dissimilation effects with rst singular clitics. Finally, it is important to note that, as predicted by our modular and derivational architecture, Participant Dissimilation need not apply to adjacent clitics. This is because, as all operations in the Markedness module, this rule precedes Linearization. As discussed in more detail below, this can be observed in examples such as Zamudio (14), where the triggering second person absolutive clitic (s-) and the deleted rst plural ergative (which would surface as -u) are not adjacent. Of the three varieties studied in this book, Participant Dissimilation occurs in Ondarru and Zamudio. In the following two Subsections, we provide detailed accounts of the phenomenon in these two dialects, and Subsection 5.3 provides a summary of other instances of Participant Dissimilation in other Biscayan varieties. 4.5.1 Ondarru In this variety, Participant Dissimilation results in simple Impoverishemt, deleting the [+Participant] feature in rst plural absolutive and dative clitics in the context of a second person ergative clitic:6 (21) Ondarru: Obliteration of 1Pl absolutive in the context of 2nd ergative / Su-k geu-/ ikus-i 0 you(Sg)-ERG us-ABS see-PRF
Tables 38 in the Appendix for full paradigms illustrating Participant Dissimilation in Ondarru.
6 See
174
Chapter 4. Deletion Operations Targeting Morphological Markedness d -o -su (>su) / *g -aitu -su. (>gatxusu) L -PRS .1. PL -CL . E .2. SG / CL . A .1. PL -PRS .1. PL - CL - E .2. SG You(Sg) have seen us. (Ondarru)
(22)
Ondarru: Obliteration of 1Pl dative in the context of 2nd ergative / gu-ri liburu-0 emo-n Su-k you(Sg)-ERG us-DAT book-ABS give-PRF d -o -su (>su) / *d -o -ku -su. (>skusu) L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .2. SG / L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D.1. PL -CL . E .2. SG You(Sg) have given us the book. (Ondarru)
We propose the following Participant Dissimilation rule to account for the Ondarru data:7 (23) Ondarru: 1Pl Obliteration a. Structural Description: an auxiliary with two clitics Cl1 and Cl2 such that Cl1 is [+Participant, +Author] and Cl2 is [Ergative, +Participant]. b. Structural Change: delete Cl1 .
The rule deletes Cl1, which must be specied as rst plural. It is underspecied for case, and thus affects both absolutive and dative clitics. Since the triggering Cl2 is specied as ergative, Cl1 is never ergative, since there can only be one clitic per case in a given auxiliary. Note also that the only person specication in Cl2 is [+Participant]: the restriction against cooccurrence of participant clitics of the same person (Subsection 4.5 in Chapter 1) forces it to be second person, given the person restriction imposed on Cl1 . This rule has the following effect in the monotransitive auxiliary in (21): (24) Derivation of the auxiliary in (21) T D Absolutive +Past +Participant +Participant +Author +Author Singular Singular T +Past +Participant +Author Singular T +Past Participant Author Singular
D Ergative +Participant Author +Singular D Ergative +Participant Author +Singular D Ergative +Participant Author +Singular
Participant Dissimilation C
1Pl Impoverishment C
Have/Appl-Ins, L-Supp C
7 Case
labels such as ergative in this rule and others below are abbreviations for the corresponding case feature
sets.
Section 4.5 Participant Dissimilation L T +Past +Have Appl Participant Author Singular
175
D Ergative +Participant Author +Singular
Vocabulary Insertion C d-o-su-0 /
Participant Dissimilation deletes the absolutive clitic. This triggers insertion of an epenthetic Lmorpheme, as in other auxiliaries that lack an absolutive clitic (Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 5). The root node (T) in this auxiliary is also subject to a different rule of First Plural Impoverishment, which neutralizes its rst person features with third (Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 3).8 Participant Dissimilation has the same effect on the rst plural dative clitic in (22): it is deleted in the context of a participant (second singular) ergative clitic. Ondarru Participant Dissimilation also applies in the past tense, as expected. We discuss these past tense forms in detail in Chapter 6, where it is shown that they interact in interesting ways with Ergative Metathesis (Chapter 5) and Absolutive Promotion (Chapter 2). Monotransitive (21) also provides evidence that, as predicted by our theory, rules in the Markedness module are not sensitive to linear order: the deleted absolutive clitic and the ergative clitic are not adjacent. 4.5.2 Zamudio Zamudio has a general Participant Dissimilation rule that deletes dative and ergative rst plural clitics in the context of a second person clitic:9 (25) Zamudio: 1Pl Obliteration a. Structural Description: an auxiliary with two clitics Cl1 and Cl2 such that Cl1 is [+Motion, +Participant, +Author] and Cl2 is [+Participant]. b. Structural Change: delete Cl1 .
The deleted rst plural morpheme Cl1 is specied for [+Motion], which matches the case features of both dative and ergative clitics, to the exclusion of absolutive clitics. As noted above for Participant Dissimilation in Ondarru, the triggering morpheme Cl2 need not be further specied for person. The fact that it always happens to be second person is due to indpendently motivated conditions on clitic combinations. Three types of auxiliaries instantiate Zamudio Participant Dissimilation. First, a second person ergative triggers the deletion of a rst plural dative clitic: (26)
8 9 See
Zamudio: Obliteration of 1Pl dative in the context of 2nd ergative
The order of application of these two Impoverishment rules is not relevant for the output. Tables 38 in the Appendix for full paradigms illustrating Participant Dissimilation in Zamudio. The effects of Participant Dissimilation are attested in our main source for this variety (Gaminde 2000), as well as in our own eld work. Forms missing in these sources have been obtained from de Yrizar 1992 in order to provide full paradigms in the Appendix, especially in the past tense. This accounts for all (apparent) exceptions to Participant Dissimilation in the past tense in this variety found in the Appendix.
176
Chapter 4. Deletion Operations Targeting Morphological Markedness Sue-k gu-ri lagun-du you(Pl)-ERG us-DAT accompany-PRF s -endu -n / *d -o -ku -su -n. (>doskusun) CL . E .2. SG -PST.3. SG -CL . E .2. SG / L -PST.3. SG -CL . D .1. PL -CL . E .2. SG -CPST You helped us. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:376)
Although the rule of Participant Dissimilation in Zamudio is different from Ondarru, they both result in Obliteration in this case (see Ondarru (22)). The second type is illustrated in the following example, where, in opposition to (26), a rst plural ergative clitic is deleted in the context of a second person dative clitic: (27) Zamudio: Obliteration of 1Pl ergative in the context of 2nd dative Itxao-ngo wait-FUT *d -o -tzu -u / y -a -tzu -e. L -PST.3. SG -CL . D .2 -CL . E .1 PL / L -PST.3. SG -CL . D .2 -CL . D . PL Well wait for you(Pl).
(Zamudio)
Despite the absence of an overt dative object DP, the context in which this sentence was elicited made it clear that the pro-dropped argument is rst plural, as shown in the translation. It is not completely transparent that the rst plural ergative clitic in this example is deleted, since a third person ergative clitic has null realization in this context (Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 3). That is, given the facts discussed so far, the auxiliary in (27) could be interpreted as containing an ergative clitic with a default null realization. Evidence that this is not the case comes from T, which is realized as intransitive -a-, not transitive -o-. This indicates that the ergative clitic is absent, which thus provides evidence that (27) is an example of Obliteration, and not just default null realization of the clitic due to Impoverishment. Consider the derivation of this auxiliary in detail. The relevant vocabulary entries for T are the following (Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 3): (28) Zamudio: default vocabulary entries for T a. Transitive o [+Have] b. Intransitive a [Have]
As shown in Subsection 4.1 in Chapter 3, transitivity alternations in Basque auxiliaries are due to a rule of Have-Insertion, which inserts [+Have] in the context of an ergative clitic, and [Have] otherwise. This rule applies in the Morphological Concord Module, and therefore applies after all Impoverishment rules, including Participant Dissimilation. The postsyntactic derivation of the auxiliary is thus as follows:10 (29)
10 Note
Derivation of the auxiliary in (27)

that the dative clitic undergoes Plural Fission in the Exponence conversion module (Subsection 3.3 in Chap-
ter 3).
Section 4.5 Participant Dissimilation T +Past Part Author +Singular T +Past Part Author +Singular T +Past Have +Appl Part Author +Singular D Ergative +Part +Author Singular
177
D Dative +Part Author D Dative +Part Author
D Dative +Part Singular D Dative +Part Singular
Participant Dissimilation C C
Have/Appl-Ins, L-Support
D D Dative Dative +Part +Part Singular Author
C y-a-tzu-e-0 /
VI
Deletion of the ergative clitic triggers insertion of [Have] in T, which is in turn realized as intransitive -a- (28b), not transitive -o- (28a). If the absence of an overt ergative clitic in (27) were interpreted in terms of null realization, the form of the auxiliary would be wrongly predicted to be dotzue. The third type of auxiliary instantiating Zamudio Participant Dissimilation also illustrates Obliteration of an ergative clitic, in this case in the context of a second person absolutive clitic: (30) Obliteration of 1Pl ergative in the context of 2nd absolutive Eroa-n bear s -ara / *s -aitu -u eskola-ra. take-NF must CL . A .2. SG -PRS .2. SG / CL . A .2. SG -PRS .2. SG -CL . E .1. PL school-ALL . SG We have to take you(Sg) to school. (Zamudio)
Like Ondarru (21), this example illustrates the absence of linear order effects predicted by our analysis, since the two clitics are not adjacent. The drastic effect that the rule has on the form of T in this auxiliary provides further conrmation that the rule in Zamudio deletes the entire clitic node. The relevant vocabulary entries for T are the following (Subsection 4.3 in Chapter 3): (31) Zamudio: vocabulary entries for participant T in the present tense a. Transitive aitu [+Have, Past, +Participant] b. Intransitive ara [Have, Appl, Past, +Participant]
Obliteration of the ergative clitic results in insertion of intransitive -ara- (31b) in T, not transitive -aitu- (31a). If the ergative clitic were present (but null), the auxiliary in (30) would be saitu, contrary to fact.
178
The variety of Alboniga provides an informative minimal contrast with Zamudio.11 In this variety, Participant Dissimilation in the same context as Zamudio (30) results in deletion of the feature [Participant], not Obliteration of the entire clitic node:12 (32) Alboniga: Impoverishment of 1Pl ergative in the context of 2nd absolutive Gu-k seue-k ikus-i us-ERG you(Pl)-ABS see-PRF 0 / s -aitu -/ -s -e (>saitxusie) / CL . A .2 -PRS .2. PL -CL . E . DFL -2. PL -CL . A . PL / *s -aitu -gu -s -e (>saitxugusie) CL . A .2 -PRS .2. PL -CL . E .1. PL -2. PL -CL . A . PL We have seen you(Pl). (Alboniga, de Yrizar 1992:466)
As in Zamudio (30), the auxiliary does not have an overt clitic doubling the rst plural ergative argument. However, the exponence of T reveals that this is a case of default null realization. The fact that T is realized as transitive -aitu-, not intransitive -ara- indicates that the ergative clitic is present. Thus, this is a case of Impoverishment, minimally contrasting with the case of Obliteration in Zamudio (30). 4.5.3 Other varieties Different instantiations of Participant Dissimilation are found throughout Biscayan varieties. In this Subsection, we provide a brief summary of the variation found in this dialectal area.13 The reader is referred to the references cited below for more detailed descriptions, and to Arregi and Nevins 2007 for an analysis of some of the most interesting generalizations that emerge from the study of this variation. All cases of Participant Dissimilation described so far target a rst plural clitic in the context of a second person clitic. The reverse, Impoverishment of a second person clitic in the context of a rst plural is found in the varieties of Alboniga (de Yrizar 1992:vol. 1, 466), Maruri, and Gatika (the last two in de Yrizar 1992:vol. 1, 651). Alboniga has Participant Dissimilation in one other context apart from the ones described in
footnote 13 below on the dialectal classication of Alboniga Basque. auxiliary in (32) is from de Yrizar 1992, which only provides auxiliary paradigms. We have lled in the rest of the sentence with an over main verb and subject and object arguments, trying to replicate the context that elicited this auxiliary. de Yrizar 1992:463 cites two separate sources for his Alboniga data. The rst one is eld notes by Resurreccin Mara de Azkue, who gathered data from this neighborhood at the beginning of the 20th century (as part of the eld work that formed the basis of de Azkue 1925). The second is eld work conducted by Martn Olazar between 1980 and 1982. The auxiliary form in (32) is from the second source. de Yrizar also provides the form saittuegu, with an overt rst plural ergative clitic exponent -gu, obtained from the rst source. It seems that Impoverishment of this clitic is a relatively recent innovation in this variety. We have accordingly marked the auxiliary with -gu as ungrammatical in (32). 13 All the Basque varieties discussed in this Subsection are in the Western Biscayan subdialectal area, according to de Yrizars (1992) classication. Specically, Butroi (Butrn in de Yrizar 1992), Gatika (Gatica) and Maruri are in the Northeastern subvariety of the Plentzia (Plencia) variety. They are closely related to Zamudio, which is also in the Plentzia variety (in its Southen subvariety). Bermeo and Alboniga (Albniga) are in the Bermeo variety, in its Proper and Western subvarieties respectively. Gallartu is in the variety of Orozko (Orozco), which only has one subvariety.
12 The 11 See
Section 4.5 Participant Dissimilation
179
the previous paragraph and Subsection 5.2. As in Zamudio, it deletes a rst plural clitic in the context of a second person in dative/ergative clitic combinations, although in this variety this is restricted to the case where the second person clitic is colloquial (de Yrizar 1992:vol. 1, 467).14 Other varieties have Participant Dissimilations similar to ones described above. In Butroi a rst plural dative clitic optionally is deleted in the context of a second ergative (Gaminde 1982:424, de Yrizar 1992:vol. 1:637).15 Gallartu deletes a rst plural ergative clitic in the context of a second person absolutive or dative (Gaminde 1983:52, 6364, de Yrizar 1992:vol. 2, 124134). Finally, Bermeo, as described in Laka et al. 2008, has a particularly generalized version of Participant Dissimilation that impoverishes all rst plural clitics in the context of a second person clitic. 4.5.4 On the potential diachronic origins of impoverishment rules Before concluding this Section, we would like to offer a few speculative remarks on the lifecycle of grammatical processes and the potential origins of morphosyntactic impoverishment rules in terms of reinterpretation of phonological processes. Consider, for example, the origin of Participant Dissimilation as found in Zamudio (Subsection 5.2 above). This may in fact have its origins phonologically in the deletion of an intervocalic /g/ in the sequence -tzu-gu, where the second singular dative clitic is -tzu and the rst plural ergative is -gu. Now, the operation of a phonological rule, present in very many dialects of Biscayan Basque, that deletes intervocalic g ((133) in Chapter 3, Section 6.2), will yield a surface form dotzuu (such forms are in fact attested in varieties of Basque such as Barrika (de Yrizar 1992:vol 1, 557).16 However, there are no long vowels in most dialects; the resulting form would therefore be dotzu. This form is in fact identical to the morphology of the combination of secnd singular dative and no ergative, which is d-a-tzuidentical, save for the root vowel. The child hearing such forms may therefore mistakenly reanalyzes them as containing no ergative clitic for morphological reasons, and posit a morphosyntactic, rather than phonological basis for the absence of this clitic, thereby allowing the cause-and-effect of this phenomenon to percolate up the grammar, and become morphologized as the Participant Dissimilation rules we have formalized above. Once this rule has become generalized in morphosyntactic terms, it will then become applicable outside of the original, purely phonologically-determined contexts in which it arose. A similar lifecycle may be posited for the rule of ergative impoverishment, discussed in Chapter 2, Section 3.2. This process deletes the case features on an ergative argument, which are therefore realized as absolutive -0 instead of ergative -k. This process has a possible historical source in the / optional phonological rule that deletes word-nal stops preceding a consonant, the details of which vary depending on dialect (see Ct 2000:274307 for a detailed study of this process in Ondarru and comparison with other varieties): (33) / Jon-{ek// 0 0} liburu-0 / irakurr-i d -au -0. / Jon-{ERG/ABS} book-ABS . SG read-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG Jon has read the book.
(Ondarru)
On the colloquial/formal distinction in the second person in Basque, see Subsection 4.5 in Chapter 1. potential Participant Dissimilation forms in Butroi are given in Gaminde 1982:421, 424 and de Yrizar 1992:636637. However, it is not clear to us whether the missing overt clitics in these forms are due to phonological processes instead of Impoverishment. 16 In Zamudio and many other Western Biscayan varieties, this has resulted in lexicalization of the rst plural clitic as -u (Subsection 4.3).
15 Other
14
180 (34)
Chapter 4. Deletion Operations Targeting Morphological Markedness / Ni-{k// 0 0} Jon-ei liburu-0 / emo-n d -o -tz -t. (>tzat) I-{ERG/ABS} Jon-DAT book-ABS . SG give-PRF L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .1. SG I have given the book to Jon. (Ondarru)
In cases like (34), it is indistinguishable whether the process is phonological or morphosyntactic: the ergative sufx is a stop -k that precedes a word-initial consonant. However, if the subject in this sentence is followed by a vowel-initial word (e.g. artikulu-0 article-ABS . SG), the nal -k is still / optional. There is no extant phonological process that would delete a -k in this context. Therefore, we contend that the phonological process has morphologized into an impoverishment rule that generalizes beyond its original phonological context. Additional support comes from the fact that in (33), the subject may be realized as ergative Jon-e, the result of a phonological rule of k-deletion preceded by vowel epenthesis, which occurs to break up the nk consonant cluster. Alternatively, it may surface as absolutive Jon, where the null case sufx does not trigger vowel epenthesis. The wholesale disappearance of both segments in the latter case implicates a morphological rule responsible for removing this entire terminal from the exponence procedure. 4.6 Plural Clitic Impoverishment Number distinctions are often neutralized in Basque clitics. This phenomenon can be seen, for instance, in the following Ondarru minimal pair: (35) Neutralization of number in dative clitics a. Su-k ber-ai karti-0 / bixal-du you(Sg)-ERG him-DAT. SG letter-ABS . SG send-PRF d -o -tz -su. (>tzasu) L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .2. SG You(Sg) have sent him the letter. b. Su-k eur-ai karti-0 / bixal-du you(Sg)-ERG them-DAT. PL letter-ABS . SG send-PRF d -o -tz (*-e) -su. (>tzasu) L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3 ( -CL . D . PL) -CL . E .2. SG You(Sg) have sent them the letter.
(Ondarru)
(Ondarru)
Although the dative arguments in these sentences contrast minimally in number, the two auxiliaries are identical: d-o-tz-su. In other contexts, a third plural clitic surfaces as -tz-e, due to Plural Fission (Subsection 3.3 in Chapter 3). The absence of plural -e in the context of a plural dative argument in (35b) indicates that the plural morpheme ssioned from the doubling clitic is not specied as plural at the point of Vocabulary Insertion. This is a clear case of markedness-targeted Impoverishment. The feature [Singular] is marked and therefore deleted in some contexts. The phenomenon seems to be widespread in Biscayan varieties, including Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio. This Section offers a detailed account of Plural Clitic Impoverishment in these three varieties.17
We concentrate here on present tense forms. In the past tense, the rules proposed below have a number of exceptions (different ones depending on dialect), and it is not clear to us at this point whether these should be handled as exceptions to the rules, or by positing different Impoverishment rules for the past tense. See Tables 6 and 78 in the
17
Section 4.6 Plural Clitic Impoverishment
181
Table 4.1: Plural Clitic Impoverishment in Lekeitio (a) Monotransitive paradigm Ergative Absolutive 1 singular 1 plural 3 singular 3 plural 2 singular s-aitu-t s-aitu-gu s-aitu-0(-s) s-aitu-0-e / / 2 plural s-aitu-e-t s-aitu-gu s-aitu-e-0 / s-aitu-e-0-e / (b) Ditransitive paradigm (3rd singular direct object) Ergative Dative 1 singular 1 plural 2 singular 2 plural 3 singular 2 singular d-o-tzu-t d-o-tzu-gu X X d-o-tzu-0 / 2 plural d-o-tzu-e-t d-o-tzu-gu X X d-o-tzu-e-0 / 3 singular d-o-tz-t d-o-tz-gu d-o-tz-su d-o-tz-su-e d-o-tz-0 / 3 plural d-o-tz-t-e d-o-tz-gu d-o-tz-su d-o-tz-su-e d-o-tz-e-0 /
3 plural d-o-tzu-0-e / d-o-tzu-e-0-e / d-o-tz-0-e / d-o-tz-e-0-e /
Number neutralization in clitics applies in three separate contexts in the varieties under discussion. The rst case, common to the three varieties, results in Impoverishment of plural in second and third person absolutive and dative clitics in the context of a participant ergative clitic. The Ondarru example in (35b) illustrates this. The following sentence from the same dialect illustrates the process with an absolutive clitic: (36) Neutralization of number in absolutive clitics Gu-k su-0 / ikus-i s -aitu (*-e) -gu. (>satxuau) we-ERG you(Sg)-ABS see-PRF CL . A .2 -PRS .2. PL ( -CL . A . PL) -CL . E .1. PL You(Sg) have sent them the letter. (Ondarru)
Table 4.1 provides the relevant parts of the paradigm in Lekeitio. Table 4.1(a) is a partial present tense monotransitive paradigm with second person absolutive clitics.18 The number neutralization in this clitic is made evident by comparing the the two cells in each column: in the columns corresponding to rst plural ergative, the two auxiliaries are the same. In particular, the exponent -e doubling the plural absolutive argument is missing. However, plural -e is present in the context of a third person (i.e. nonparticipant) ergative clitic.19 Table 4.1(b) is a partial present tense ditransitive paradigm with second and third person dative clitics, and illustrates a similar pattern. Plural -e is missing from the dative clitic in the context of a participant (rst plural and second) ergative clitic, thus neutralizing number distinctions in the relevant columns. The reader can verify in Tables 35 in the Appendix that the Ondarru and Zamudio paradigms are identical to Lekeitio in this respect. We propose the following rule to account for this case of number neutralization:
Appendix for the relevant past tense forms. 18 Third person asbolutive arguments do not trigger cliticization, and therefore are not relevant for Plural Clitic Impoverishment. 19 This exponent is also present in the context of a rst singular ergative clitic. This follows from our analysis, as discussed below.
182 (37)
Chapter 4. Deletion Operations Targeting Morphological Markedness Plural Clitic Impoverishment in the context of a participant clitic a. Structural Description: an auxiliary with two clitics Cl1 and Cl2 such that Cl1 is [Singular], Cl2 is [Ergative, +Participant], and Cl1 and Cl2 are not sisters. b. Structural Change: delete [Singular] in Cl1 .
In the relevant cases, the rule targets a ssioned plural morpheme from an absolutive or dative clitic. Consider, for instance, the derivation of the auxiliary in (35b), with a third plural dative and a second singular ergative clitic. In the Exponence conversion Module, Plural Fission applies to the dative clitic, splitting it into two sister nodes: (38) Result of Plural Fission in a third plural dative clitic C
T T D Dative Part Author D D Dative Part Singular
C D Ergative +Part Author +Singular C
Since the targeted plural morpheme and the triggering participant ergative clitic are not sisters, Plural Clitic Impoverishment deletes the [Singular] feature in the ssioned clitic: (39) Result of Plural Clitic Impoverishment in a third plural dative clitic C
T T D
C D Ergative +Part Author +Singular C
D Dative Part Author
D Dative Part
In the absence of a dative clitic exponent matching the features of the impoverished clitic, the latter is realized as null (the universal default).
Section 4.6 Plural Clitic Impoverishment
183
In effect, the nonsister condition in (37) ensures that the triggering participant feature and the targeted plural feature originate in separate clitics.20 Since the triggering clitic is ergative and there can only be one clitic per case in the auxiliary, the targeted plural morpheme must be ssioned from a nonergative clitic. Thus, the nonsister condition also derives the fact that number neutralization occurs only in absolutive and dative clitics. The number neutralization paradigm discussed above has another property that is accounted for in this analysis but is not mentioned explicitly in the rule: although the triggering clitic is participant, a rst singular ergative clitic does not trigger the rule (Table 4.1). This is in fact the same restriction that applies to Participant Dissimilation discussed in the previous Section. We thus propose that it is due to First Singular Clitic Impoverishment (20), which applies before Plural Clitic Impoverishment. Deletion of [+Participant] in rst singular clitics ensures that they do not trigger Plural Clitic Impoverishment. Another interesting property of Plural Clitic Impoverishment is that the targeted clitic need not be a ssioned plural morpheme. In particular, a rst plural clitic, which does not undergo Plural Fission (Subsection 3.3 in Chapter 3), meets the plurality requirement on Cl1 in the Structural Description of the rule. We thus assume that its plural feature is deleted in the context of a participant clitic. However, this has no effect on the realization of the clitic, as illustrated by all auxiliaries with a rst plural ergative clitic in Table 4.1. This is due to the feature specication of the relevant vocabulary entries, illustrated here for the dialect of Lekeitio (Subsection 3.2 in Chapter 3): (40) Lekeitio: vocabulary entries for rst plural clitics a. ku [+Peripheral, +Motion, +Participant, +Author] b. gu [Peripheral, +Motion, +Participant, +Author] c. g [+Participant, +Author]/ T
Dat Dat Abs
Since the clitic entries lack a specication for number, deletion of the plural feature does not have an effect on the realization of rst plural clitics.21 Like Participant Dissimilation, this rst case of Plural Clitic Impoverishment illustrates syntagmatic markedness where both the targeted and triggering morpheme are marked: the former is [Singular], and the latter is [+Participant]. Ondarru has yet another type of Plural Clitic Impoverishment: (41) Ondarru: Third Plural Clitic Impoverishment a. Structural Description: an auxiliary with two clitics Cl1 and Cl2 such that Cl1 is [Dative, Participant, Singular] and Cl2 is [Ergative, Participant]. b. Structural Change: delete [Singular] in Cl1 .
they originated in the same clitic, this would predict generalized neutralization of number in second and third person clitics, contrary to fact. 21 Although this instantiation of Plural Clitic Impoverishment does not have an overt effect, it makes a potentially interesting prediction. If in a given variety the entries for rst plural clitics are specied for number, Plural Clitic Impoverishment would result in a default realization of the clitic (which would be null or overt, depending on the case and position of the clitic). On the surface, this would have the same effect as Participant Dissimilation targeting a rst plural clitic in the context of a second person clitic. Thus, Impoverishment of rst plural in the context of a participant clitic would have two sources: Participant Dissimilation and Plural Clitic Impoverishment. This might explain why, as noted in Section 5, Participant Dissimilation targets rst plural more often than second person.
20 If
184
The rule applies in combiations of third person clitic clusters (dative and ergative), and its result is the neutralization of number contrasts in the dative clitic: (42) Ondarru: number neutralization in third person dative clitics a. Jon-ek ber-ai karti-0 / bixal-du Jon-ERG him-DAT. SG letter-ABS . SG send-PRF d -o -tz -0. / (>tza) L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3. SG -CL . E .3. SG John has sent him the letter. b. Jon-ek eur-ai karti-0 / bixal-du Jon-ERG him-DAT. SG letter-ABS . SG send-PRF d -o -tz (*-e) -0. / (>tza) L -PRS .3. SG -CL . D .3 ( -CL . D . PL) -CL . E .3. SG Jon has sent them the letter.
(Ondarru)
(Ondarru)
This neutralization provides conrmation to the claim made in Subsection 3.2, on the basis of similar 3/3 effects in Romance, that the combination of two [Participant] morphemes results in a marked conguration that is the target of Impoverishment, even though this feature by itself is not marked. The structure of the auxiliary in (42b) after Plural Fission of the dative clitic is the following: (43) Plural Fission in a third plural dative clitic C
T T D Dative Part Author D D Dative Part Singular
C D Ergative Part Author +Singular C
The ssioned plural clitic meets the requirements on Cl1 : it is a dative nonparticipant clitic in the context of a third person ergative clitic. Thus, Third Plural Clitic Impoverishment deletes its [Singular] feature, which results in null realization (as in the previous case of Plural Clitic Impoverishment). Note that reference to case and person features in the targeted clitic is crucial in this case, which provides further evidence to our hypothesis advanced in Subsection 3.3 in Chapter 3 that morphemes that are the output of Fission share most of their features with the input morpheme. A nal case of Plural Clitic Impoverishment in the three dialects discussed here is present in Zamudio. This variety has the following very specic rule targeting a single ditransitive auxiliary:
Section 4.6 Plural Clitic Impoverishment (44)
185
Zamudio: Third Ergative Plural Clitic Impoverishment a. Structural Description: a past tense auxiliary with two clitics Cl1 and Cl2 and a complementizer agreement node Agr such that Cl1 is [Ergative, Participant, Singular], Cl2 is [Dative, +Participant, +Author, Singular], and Agr is [Singular]. b. Structural Change: delete [Singular] in Cl1 .
This rule deletes [Singular] in a third person ergative clitic in a highly marked environment: T is past tense, complementizer agreement is plural, and the dative clitic is rst plural. The result can be observed in the following auxiliary: (45) Zamudio: number neutralization in third ergative 0 -o / -ku -0 / (*-e) -s -n (>oskusen) L -PST.3. PL -CL . D .1. PL -CL . E .3 ( -CL . E . PL) -3. PL -CPST
In very similar environments, such as the past tense or in the context of a dative clitic with other features, Zamudio third person ergative clitics preserve a plural distinction (see Tables 45 and 78 in the Appendix for relevant forms). To conclude, the markedness of [Singular] is amply demonstrated by the absence of plural -e in certain marked contexts in Basque auxiliaries. There is another potential case to be made for Impoverishment of plural clitics in Basque. As noted in Lafon 1961, Basque auxiliaries tend to surface with a single plural clitic exponent (-e or -te), even in cases where the syntax would call for more than one instance of it.22 In the three Biscayan varieties studied here, this is in fact true of all surface forms of auxiliaries, which suggests that an additional Plural Clitic Impoverishment rule is at work. However, all these cases are accounted for in this book by independently motivated processes. This can be seen in the Lekeitio data in Table 4.1 on page 181, where the relevant forms are those that cross-reference a second or third plural absolutive or dative argument and with a second or third plural ergative argument. In the 3Pl dative/2Pl ergative auxiliary d-o-tzsu-e (Table 4.1(b)), the expected dative plural -e is missing due to Plural Clitic Impoverishment in the context of a participant clitic (37). All other relevant forms involve two phonologically adjacent instances of -e. In these cases, the underlying ee strings are reduced to e by Nonhigh Vowel Deletion (discussed in Subsection 6.2 in Chapter 3).23 However, we do not rule out the possibility that cases of this sort in other dialects are due to a dissimilatory Impoverishment rule that reduces the number of [Singular] features in auxiliaries. This might even be true for the three varieties studied here, a hypothesis that can only be tested by doing more detailed work on other dialects, especially those where the plural clitic exponent is -te and can therefore not be absent due to phonological vowel deletion.
le basque rpugne rpter lindice -te, mme quand il doit remplir deux fonctions diffrentes. Ainsi, en labourdin moderne et en guipuzcoan, en regard de dio il le lui a", diote peut signier ils le lui ont", il le leur a", ils le leur ont". (Lafon 1961:151) Our translation: But Basque is loath to repeat the marker -te, even when it must fulll two different functions. Thus, in Labourdin and Guipuscoan, alongside dio he has it to him", diote can mean they have it to him", he has it to them", they have it to them". 23 The auxiliaries in Table 4.1 are shown in their underlying form, so the effect of this phonological rule is not apparent.
22 Mais
Indicative auxiliary paradigms
271
272
Chapter 7. Conclusions
Table 1: Absolutive auxiliary

Absolutive First singular Present n-as n-as n-as g-ara g-as g-ara s-ara s-as s-ara s-ari-e s-as-e s-ari-e d-a d-a d-a d-ira(-s) d-i(-s) d-ire(-s) Past n-itz-an n-itx-an n-itz-en g-ii-an g-i-an g-intz-e(s-a)n s-ii-an s-i-an g-intz-en s-ii-e-n s-i-e-n s-intz-ie-n s-a-n s-a-n s-a-n s-iri-an s-i-n s-ire-n
First plural
Second singular
Second plural
Third singular
Third plural
Table 2: Absolutive-dative auxiliary

Present Third singular dx-a-t g-a-sta d-a-t dx-a-ku g-a-sku d-a-ku dx-a-tzu g-a-tzu d-a-tzu dx-a-tzu-e g-a-tzu-e d-a-tzu-e dx-a-ko g-a-ko d-a-ko dx-a-k-e g-a-ko-e d-a-k-ie Absolutive Past Third singular dx-a-t-en g-a-sta-n y-a-t-en dx-a-ku-n g-a-sku-n y-a-ku-n dx-a-tzu-n g-a-tzu-n y-a-tzu-n dx-a-tzu-e-n g-a-tzu-e-n y-a-tzu-e-n dx-a-ko-n g-a-ko-n y-a-ko-n dx-a-k-e-n g-a-ko-e-n y-a-k-ie-n
Dative First singular
First plural
Second singular
Second plural
Third singular
Third plural
Third plural dx-a-ra-s d-a-sta-s d-a-t-es dx-a-ku-s g-a-sku-s d-a-ku-s dx-a-tzu-s g-a-tzu-s d-a-tzu-s dx-a-tzu-e-s g-a-tzu-e-s d-a-tzu-e-s dx-a-ko-s g-a-ko-s d-a-ko-s dx-a-k-e-s g-a-ko-e-s d-a-k-ie-s
Third plural dx-a-ra-s-en g-a-sta-as-en y-a-t-es-an dx-a-ku-s-en g-a-sku-s-en y-a-ku-s-en dx-a-tzu-s-en g-a-tzu-s-en y-a-tzu-s-en dx-a-tzu-e-s-en g-a-tzu-e-s-en y-a-tzu-e-s-an dx-a-ko-s-en g-a-ko-s-en y-a-ko-s-an dx-a-k-e-s-en g-a-ko-e-s-en y-a-k-ie-s-an
Section 7.3 On the Methodological Cycle between cross-dialectal breadth and depth
273
Table 3: Present tense absolutive-ergative auxiliary

Ergative 1Sg 1Sg X X X X X X n-a-su n-a-su n-o-su n-a-su-e n-a-su-e n-o-su-e n-au-0 / n-au-0 / n-eu-0 / n-ab-0-e / n-ab-0-e / n-eu-0-re / Absolutive 1Pl 2Sg 2Pl X s-aitxu-t s-aitxu-e-t X s-atxu-t s-atxu-e-t X s-aitu-t s-aitu-e-t X s-aitxu-gu s-aitxu-gu X s-atxu-au s-atxu-au s-ari-e X s-ara g-aitxu-su(-s) X X d-o-su X X g-o-su-s X X g-aitxu-su-e(-s) X X d-o-su-e X X g-o-su-e-s X X g-aitxu-0(-s) s-aitxu-0(-s) s-aitxu-e-0 / / / g-atxu-0(-s) / s-atxu-0 / s-atxu-e-0 / g-aitu-0 / s-aitu-0-s / s-aitu-e-0 / g-aitxu-0-e(-s) s-aitxu-0-e / / s-aitxu-0-0-e / / g-atxu-0-e / s-atxu-0-e / s-atxu-0-0-e / / g-aitu-0-e / s-aitu-0-e / s-aitu-0-0-e / / 3Sg d-o-t d-o-t d-o-t d-o-gu d-o-u d-0-u / d-o-su d-o-su d-o-su d-o-su-e d-o-su-e d-o-su-e d-au-0 / d-au-0 / d-eu-0 / d-ab-0-e / d-ab-0-e / d-eu-0-re / 3Pl d-o-ra-s d-otxu-a-s d-o-t-es d-o-gu-s d-o-u-s d-0-u-s / d-o-su-s d-o-su-s d-o-su-s d-o-su-e-s d-o-su-e-s d-o-su-e-s d-itxu-0-s / d-otxu-0-s / d-itu-0(-s) / d-ab-0-e-s / d-otxu-0-e-s / d-itu-0-e(-s) /
1Pl
2Sg
2Pl
3Sg
3Pl
Table 4: Present tense absolutive-dative-ergative auxiliary (third singular absolutive)

Erg 1Sg 1Sg X X X X X X n-a-su d-o-sta-su d-o-ste-su n-a-su-e d-o-sta-su-e d-o-ste-su-e n-au-0 / d-o-sta-0 / d-o-st-0 / n-ab-0-e / d-o-st-0-e / d-o-st-0-ie / 1Pl X X X X X X g-aitxu-su d-o-su d-o-su g-aitxu-su-e d-o-su-e d-o-su-e g-aitxu-0 / d-o-sku-0 / d-o-sku-0 / g-aitxu-0-e / d-o-sku-0-e / d-o-sku-0-e / Dative 2Sg 2Pl d-o-tzu-t d-o-tzu-e-t d-o-tzu-t d-o-tzu-e-t d-o-tzu-t d-o-tzu-e-t d-o-tzu-gu d-o-tzu-gu d-o-tzu-au d-o-tzu-au d-a-tzu-e d-a-tzu X X X X X X X X X X X X d-o-tzu-0 / d-o-tzu-e-0 / d-o-tzu-0 / d-o-tzu-e-0 / d-o-tzu-0 / d-o-tzu-e-0 / d-o-tzu-0-e / d-o-tzu-0-0-e / / d-o-tzu-0-e / d-o-tzu-0-0-e / / d-o-tzu-0-e / d-o-tzu-0-0-e / / 3Sg d-o-tza-t d-o-tza-t d-o-tze-t d-o-tza-gu d-o-tza-u d-o-tz-u d-o-tza-su d-o-tza-su d-o-tze-su d-o-tza-su-e d-o-tza-su-e d-o-tze-su-e d-o-tz-o d-o-tza-0 / d-o-tz-o d-o-tz-0-e / d-o-tz-0-e / d-o-tz-0-ie / 3Pl d-o-tza-t-e d-o-tz-e-t d-o-tz-ie-t d-o-tza-gu d-o-tza-u d-o-tz-u d-o-tza-su d-o-tza-su d-o-tze-su d-o-tza-su-e d-o-tza-su-e d-o-tze-su-e d-o-tz-e-0 / d-o-tza-0 / d-o-tz-ie-0 / d-o-tz-0-0-e / / d-o-tz-0-e / d-o-tz-0-0-ie / /
1Pl
2Sg
2Pl
3Sg
3Pl
Table 5: Present tense absolutive-dative-ergative auxiliary (third plural absolutive)

Ergative First singular First singular X X X X X X n-a-su-s d-o-sta-su-s d-o-ste-su-s n-a-su-e-s d-o-sta-su-e-s d-o-ste-su-e-s n-itxu-0-s / d-o-sta-0-s / d-o-st-0-es / n-ab-0-e-s / d-o-st-0-e-s / d-o-st-0-ie-s / First plural X X X X X X g-aitxu-su-s d-o-su-s d-o-su-s g-aitxu-su-e-s d-o-su-e-s d-o-su-e-s g-aitxu-0-s / d-o-sku-0-s / d-o-sku-0-s / g-aitxu-0-e-s / d-o-sku-0-e-s / d-o-sku-0-e-s / Dative Second singular Second plural d-o-tzu-ra-s d-o-tzu-e-ra-s d-o-tzu-t d-o-tzu-e-t d-o-tzu-t-es d-o-tzu-e-t-as d-o-tzu-gu-s d-o-tzu-gu-s d-o-tzu-au-s d-o-tzu-au-s d-a-tzu-e-s d-a-tzu-s X X X X X X X X X X X X d-o-tzu-0-s / d-o-tzu-e-0-s / d-o-tzu-0-s / d-o-tzu-e-0-s / d-o-tzu-0-s / d-o-tzu-e-0-s / d-o-tzu-0-e-s / d-o-tzu-0-0-e-s / / d-o-tzu-0-e-s / d-o-tzu-0-0-e-s / / d-o-tzu-0-e-s / d-o-tzu-0-0-e-s / / Third Singular d-o-tza-ra-s d-o-tza-t d-o-tze-a-s d-o-tza-gu-s d-o-tza-u-s d-o-tz-u-s d-o-tza-su-s d-o-tza-su-s d-o-tze-su-s d-o-tza-su-e-s d-o-tza-su-e-s d-o-tze-su-e-s d-o-tz-o-s d-o-tza-0-s / d-o-tz-o-s d-o-tz-0-e-s / d-o-tz-0-e-s / d-o-tz-0-ie-s / Third plural d-o-tza-t-e-s d-o-tz-e-t d-o-tz-ie-t-as d-o-tza-gu-s d-o-tza-u-s d-o-tz-u-s d-o-tza-su-s d-o-tza-su-s d-o-tze-su-s d-o-tza-su-e-s d-o-tza-su-e-s d-o-tze-su-e-s d-o-tz-e-0-s / d-o-tza-0-s / d-o-tz-ie-0-s / d-o-tz-0-0-e-s / / d-o-tz-0-e-s / d-o-tz-0-0-ie-s / /
First plural
Second singular
Second plural
Third singular
Third plural
274
Section 7.3 On the Methodological Cycle between cross-dialectal breadth and depth
Table 6: Past tense absolutive-ergative auxiliary

Ergative First singular First singular X X X X X X n-a-su-n n-iddu-su-n n-endu-su-n n-a-su-e-n n-iddu-su-e-n n-endu-su-e-n n-ab-0-en / n-itxu-0-n / n-endu-0-n / n-ab-0-e-n / n-itxu-0-e-n / n-endu-0-e-n / Absolutive First plural Second singular X s-aitxu-t-en X s-iddu-da-s-en X s-endu-da-s-an X s-aitxu-gu-n X s-iddu-gu-s-en X s-endu-gu-s-an g-aitxu-su-n X s-endu-n X g-endu-su-n X g-aitxu-su-e-n X s-endu-e-n X g-endu-su-e-n X g-aitxu-0-s-en / s-aitxu-0-n / g-iddu-0-n / s-iddu-0-s-en / g-endu-0-s-en / s-endu-0-s-en / g-aitxu-0-s-e-n / s-aitxu-0-e-n / g-iddu-0-e-n / s-iddu-0-e-s-en / g-endu-0-e-s-an / s-endu-0-e-s-an / Second plural s-aitxu-e-t-en s-iddu-da-s-en s-endu-e-da-s-an s-aitxu-e-gu-n s-iddu-gu-s-en s-endu-e-gu-s-an X X X X X X s-aitxu-e-0-n / s-iddu-0-s-en / s-endu-e-0-s-an / s-aitxu-0-0-e-n / / s-iddu-0-e-s-en / s-endu-0-0-e-s-an / / Third Singular n-eb-an n-eb-an n-eu-en g-endu-an g-endu-n g-endu-n s-endu-an s-endu-n s-endu-n s-endu-e-n s-endu-e-n s-endu-e-n 0-eb-an / 0-eb-an / 0-eu-en / 0-eb-e-n / 0-eb-e-n / 0-eu-re-n / Third plural n-eb-as-an n-eb-an n-eu-s-en g-endu-s-an g-endu-n g-endu-s-en s-endu-s-an s-endu-n s-endu-s-en s-endu-e-s-en s-endu-e-n s-endu-e-s-an 0-eb-as-an / 0-eb-an / 0-eu-s-en / 0-eb-e-s-en / 0-eb-e-n / 0-eu-re-s-an /
First plural
Second singular
Second plural
Third singular
Third plural
275
Table 7: Past tense absolutive-dative-ergative auxiliary (third singular absolutive)

Ergative First singular First singular X X X X X X 0-eu-sta-su-n / d-o-sta-s-endu-n 0-o-ste-su-n / 0-eu-sta-su-e-n / d-o-sta-s-endu-e-n 0-o-ste-su-e-n / 0-eu-sta-n / d-o-sta-0-n / 0-o-ste-0-n / / 0-eu-st-e-n / d-o-st-0-e-n / 0-o-st-0-ie-n / / First plural X X X X X X 0-eu-sku-su-n / s-endu-n s-endu-n 0-eu-sku-su-e-n / s-endu-e-n s-endu-e-n 0-eu-sku-n / d-o-sku-0-n / 0-o-sku-0-n / / 0-eu-sku-e-n / d-o-sku-0-e-n / 0-o-sku-0-e-n / / Dative Second singular n-eu-tzu-n n-e-tzu-n n-eun-tzu-n 0-eu-tzu-gu-n / g-en-tzu-n g-eun-tzu-n X X X X X X 0-eu-tzu-n / d-o-tzu-n 0-o-tzu-n / 0-eu-tzu-e-n / d-o-tzu-e-n 0-o-tzu-e-n / Second plural n-eu-tzu-e-n n-e-tzu-e-n n-eun-tzu-e-n 0-eu-tzu-gu-n / g-en-tzu-e-n g-eun-tzu-e-n X X X X X X 0-eu-tzu-e-n / d-o-tzu-e-n 0-o-tzu-e-n / 0-eu-tzu-0-e-n / / d-o-tzu-0-e-n / 0-o-tzu-0-e-n / / Third Singular n-eu-tza-n n-e-tza-n n-eun-tze-n 0-eu-tza-gu-n / g-en-tza-n g-eun-tz-en 0-eu-tza-su-n / s-en-tza-n s-eun-tze-n 0-eu-tza-su-e-n / s-en-tz-e-n s-eun-tz-ie-n 0-eu-tza-n / d-o-tza-n 0-o-tze-n / 0-eu-tz-e-n / d-o-tz-e-n 0-o-tz-ie-n / Third plural n-eu-tz-e-n n-e-tz-e-n n-eun-tz-ie-n 0-eu-tza-gu-n / g-en-tza-n g-eun-tz-ie-n 0-eu-tza-su-n / s-en-tza-n s-eun-tz-ie-n 0-eu-tza-su-e-n / s-en-tz-e-n s-eun-tz-0-ie-n / 0-eu-tz-e-n / d-o-tz-e-n 0-o-tz-ie-n / 0-eu-tz-0-e-n / / d-o-tz-0-e-n / 0-o-tz-0-ie-n / /
First plural
Second singular
Second plural
Third singular
Third plural
276
Bibliography
Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Adger, David. 2006. Post-syntactic movement and the Old Irish verb. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24:605654. Adger, David, Susana Bjar, and Daniel Harbour. 2003. Directionality of allomorphy: A reply to Carstairs-McCarthy. Transactions of the Philological Society 101:109115. Adger, David, and Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Syntax 10:237. Alberdi, Jabier. 1995. The development of the Basque system of terms of address and the allocutive conjugation. In Towards a history of the Basque language, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde, Joseba A. Lakarra, and R. L. Trask, 275293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Albizu, Pablo. 1997. Generalized Person-Case Constraint: A case for a syntax-driven inectional morphology. In Theoretical issues at the morphology-syntax interface, ed. Amaya Mendikoetxea and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria, 134. Bilbo: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Albizu, Pablo. 2002. Basque verbal morphology: Redening cases. 119. Bilbo: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Albizu, Pablo, and Luis Eguren. 2000. An optimality theoretic account for ergative displacement in Basque. In Morphological analysis in comparison, ed. Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, Markus A. Pchtrager, and John R. Rennison, 123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2006. Clitic doubling. In The blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, volume 1, 519581. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Anderson, J.M. 1992. Linguistic Representation: Structural Analogy and Stratication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Anderson, Stephen. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aoun, Joseph, Norbert Hornstein, David Lightfoot, and Amy Weinberg. 1987. Two types of locality. Linguistic Inquiry 18:537577. 281
282
Bibliography
Aramaio, Itziar. 2001. Berriatuako aditz laguntzailea. BA Thesis, Deustuko Unibertsitatea, Bilbo. Arregi, Karlos. 1998. On intransitive vp: Evidence from absolutive agreement in Basque. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Arregi, Karlos. 2000. Tense in Basque. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Available at http://home.uchicago.edu/karlos/Arregi-tense.pdf. Arregi, Karlos. 2002. Focus on Basque movements. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Arregi, Karlos. 2004. The have/be Alternation in Basque. Ms., University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Available at http://home.uchicago.edu/karlos/Arregi-have.pdf. Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2007. Obliteration vs. Impoverishment in the Basque g-/zconstraint. In The Proceedings of the Penn Linguistics Colloquium 30, U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 13.1, 114. Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Also available at http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000280. Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2008. Agreement and clitic restrictions in Basque. In Agreement restrictions, ed. Susann Fischer Roberta DAlessandro and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 4986. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Arretxe, Jon. 1994. Basauriko euskara. Basauri: Basauriko Udala. Artiagoitia, Xabier. 1997. DP predicates in Basque. In University of Washington working papers in linguistics, volume 15, ed. Maria Galvo, 161198. Department of Linguistics, University of Washington, Seattle. Available at http://depts.washington.edu/uwwpl/editions/vol15.html. Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2002. The functional structure of the Basque noun phrase. In Erramu boneta: A festschrift for Rudolf P.G. de Rijk, ed. Xabier Artiagoitia, Patxi Goenaga, and Joseba A. Lakarra, 7390. Bilbo: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Available at http://artxiker.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/08/35/34/PDF/functionalstructure.pdf. Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2003a. Adjunct subordination. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 710762. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2003b. Complementation (noun clauses). In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 634710. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2003c. Reciprocal and reexive constructions. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 607632. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Austin, Jennifer. 2006. Dative overmarking in Basque: Evidence of Spanish-Basque convergence. Euskalingua 9:136145. Available at http://www.mendebalde.com. de Azkue, Resurreccin Mara. 1925. Morfologa vasca. Bilbo: Editorial Vasca. Available at http://www.euskaltzaindia.net/dok/iker_jagon_tegiak/2679.pdf. Badihardugu. 2005. Oatiko aditz-taulak. Eibar: Badihardugu Euskara Elkartia. Available at http://www.badihardugu.com/argitalpenak/aditz_taulak/oinatiko_aditza.pdf.
Bibliography
283
Baker, Mark. 1985. The Mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic inquiry 16:373AS415. Bakovi , Eric. 2007. A revised typology of opaque generalisations. Phonology 24:214259. c Bayer, Josef. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3:209274. Bjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance linguistics. Theory and acquistion: Selected papers from the 32nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Toronto, April 2002, ed. Ana Teresa Prez-Leroux and Yves Roberge, 4962. John Benjamins. Belletti, Adriana. 2005. Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus 17:135. Bhatia, Archna, Elabbas Benmamoun, and Maria Polinsky. 2010. Closest conjunct agreement in head nal languages. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2009 9:6788. Bhatt, Rakesh, and James Yoon. 1992. On the composition of COMP and parameters of V2. In The proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Dawn Bates, 4152. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In Proceedings of the Maryland Mayfest on Morphology 1999, ed. Kleanthes K. Grohmann and Caro Struijke, volume 10 of University of Maryland working papers in linguistics, 3571. Department of Linguistics, University of Maryland, College Park. Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2008a. Missing Persons: A Case study in Morphological Universals. The Linguistic Review 25.1-2:203230. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008b. Wheres phi? agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, ed. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Bjar, 295328. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bonet, Eulalia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Borsley, Robert D., Maggie Tallerman, and David Willis. 2007. The syntax of Welsh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bokovi , eljko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33:351383. c Bossong, Georg. 1984. Ergativity in Basque. Linguistics 22:341392. Calabrese, Andrea. 1998. Metaphony revisited. Rivista di linguistica 10:768. Calabrese, Andrea. 2005. Markedness and economy within a derivational model of phonology. Mouton de Gruyter. Calabrese, Andrea. 2008. On absolute and contextual syncretism: remarks on the structure of paradigms and how to derive them. In Inectional identity, ed. Asaf Bachrach and Andrew Nevins, 156205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
284
Bibliography
Calabrese, Andrea. 2010. Investigations on markedeness, syncretism and zero exponence in morphology. Morphology to appear: DOI: 10.1007/s11525-010-9169-y:(to appear). Campos, Hector. 1992. Enunciative elements in Gascon. Linguistics 30:911940. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Lori Repetti. 2006. Proclitic vs. enclitic pronouns in northern Italian dialects. Ms., University of Venice and Stonybrook University. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Lori Repetti. 2008. The phonology and syntax of preverbal and postverbal subject clitics in Northern Italian dialects. Linguistic Inquiry 39:523563. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Ur Shlonsky. 2004. Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian. Linguistic Inquiry 35:519557. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deciency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. Henk van Riemsdijk, 145233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cecchetto, Carlo. 2000. Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus 12:93126. Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin, 417454. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 152. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Mara Luisa Zubizarreta, 133166. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. Harper and Row. Chung, Sandra, and James McCloskey. 1987. Government, barriers, and small clauses in Modern Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 18:173237. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24:239 297. Ct, Marie-Hlne. 2000. Consonant cluster phonotactics: a perceptual approach. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Cottel, Siobhan. 1995. The representation of tense in Modern Irish. In Geneva generative papers 3.2, ed. Michal Starke, Eric Haeberli, and Christopher Laenzlinger, 105124. Dpartement de Linguistique Gnrale, Universit de Genve, Geneva.
Bibliography
285
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, and Marjo van Koppen. 2008. Pronominal doubling in Dutch dialects: Big DPs and coordinations. In Microvariation in syntactic doubling, ed. Sjef Barbiers, Olaf Koeneman, Marika Lekakou, and Margreet van der Ham, 207249. Bingley: Emerald. Cuervo, Mara Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. De Rijk, Rudolf P.G. 1972. Studies in Basque syntax: Relative clauses. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Dchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33:409442. Den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elordieta, Arantzazu. 2001. Verb movement and constituent permutation in Basque. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Leiden, Leiden. Elordieta, Gorka. 1997. Morphosyntactic feature chains and phonological domains. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Ms., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32:555595. Etxeberria, Urzi. 2008. On quantication in Basque and on how some languages restrict their quanticational domain overtly. In Quantication: A crosslinguistic perspective, ed. Lisa Matthewson, 225276. Bingley: Emerald. Etxepare, Ricardo. 2003a. Negation. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 516564. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Etxepare, Ricardo. 2003b. Valency and argument structure in the Basque verb. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 363426. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Etxepare, Ricardo, and Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 2003. Focalization. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 459516. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Euskaltzaindia. 2008. Euskararen herri hizkeren atlasa. URL
Fernndez, Beatriz. 1997. Egiturazko kasuaren erkaketa euskaraz. Doctoral Dissertation, Euskal Herriko Univertsitatea, Vitoria-Gasteiz. Fernndez, Beatriz. 1999. On split ergativity: evidence from Basque. In Papers on morphology and syntax, cycle two, ed. Vivian Lin, Cornelia Krause, Benjamin Bruening, and Karlos Arregi, volume 34 of MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 177190. MITWPL, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
286
Bibliography
Fernndez, Beatriz. 2001. Absolutibo komunztaduradun ergatiboak, absolutibo komunztaduradun datiboak: Ergatiboaren lekualdatzetik datiboaren lekualdatzera. In Kasu eta komunztaduraren gainean: On case and agreement, ed. Beatriz Fernndez and Pablo Albizu, 147 165. Bilbo: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Available at http://www.argitalpenak.ehu.es/p291content/es/contenidos/libro/se_lologia_komunztaduraren/es_lologi/adjuntos/c40lol.pdf. Fernndez, Beatriz, and Pablo Albizu. 2000. Ergative displacement in Basque and the division of labor between morphology and syntax. In The Proceedings from the Panels of the Chicago Linguistic Societys Thirty-Sixth Meeting, 103117. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. Fernndez, Beatriz, and Mara Jos Ezeizabarrena. 2003. Itsasaldeko solezismoa, datiboaren lekualdatzearen argipean. In Iker 14.1: Euskal gramatikari eta literaturari buruzko ikerketak XXI. mendearen atarian. Gramatika gaiak, ed. Jesus Mari Makazaga and Bernard Oyharabal, 255277. Bilbo: Euskaltzaindia. Available at http://www.euskaltzaindia.org/dok/ikerbilduma/54817.pdf. Frampton, John. 2009. Distributed reduplication. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Frampton, John, and Sam Gutmann. 2006. How sentences grow in the mind: Agreement and selection in efcient minimialist syntax. In Agreement systems, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 121157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fu, Eric. 2007. Cyclic Spell-Out and the nature of post-syntactic operations: Evidence from complementizer agreement. Linguistic Analysis 33:267302. Fu, Eric. 2008. Multiple agreement and the representation of inection in the C-domain. Linguistische Berichte 213:77. Gair, James W., and Kashi Wali. 1989. Hindi agreement as anaphor. Linguistics 27:4570. Gaminde, Iaki. 1982. Butroiko euskara. Fontes Linguae Vasconum 14:403460. Gaminde, Iaki. 1983. Orozkoko aditzak. Fontes Linguae Vasconum 15:3796. Gaminde, Iaki. 1984. Aditza bizkaieraz. Pamplona: Udako Euskal Unibertsitatea. Gaminde, Iaki. 1988. Ahozko bizkaieraz. Bilbo: Bizkaiko AEK. Gaminde, Iaki. 2000. Zamudio berbarik berba. Bilbo: Labayru Ikastegia. Available online at http://bips.bi.ehu.es/manwe-bideoteka/zamudio/. Gaminde, Iaki. 2002. Bizkaiko euskararen ezaugarri fonologiko batzuen inguruan. Euskalingua 1:414. Available at http://www.mendebalde.com. Gmez Lpez, Ricardo, and Koldo Sainz. 1995. On the origin of the nite forms of the Basque verb. In Towards a history of the Basque language, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde, Joseba A. Lakarra, and R. L. Trask, 235274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haiman, John, and Paola Beninc. 1992. The Rhaeto-Romance languages. London: Routledge.
Bibliography
287
Hale, Kenneth. 1973. Person Marking in Warlbiri. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle , 308344. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 53109. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Halle, Morris. 1997. Impoverishment and Fission. PF: Papers at the Interface, MITWPL 425450. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inection. In The View from Building 20, 111176. Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In MITWPL 21: Papers on phonology and morphology, 275288. Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL. Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Halpern, Aaron, and Arnold Zwicky. 1996. Approaching second: second position clitics and related phenomena. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Harbour, Daniel. 2006. Person Hierarchies and Geometry without Hierarchies or Geometries. Queen Marys OPAL #6. Hargus, Sharon, and Ellen Kaisse. 1993. Studies in Lexical Phonology. Academic Press. Harley, Heidi. 1994. Hug a tree: Deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy. In Papers on phonology and morphology, ed. Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Tony Bures, volume 21 of MIT working papers in linguistics, 289320. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Harris, James, and Morris Halle. 2005. Unexpected Plural Inections in Spanish: Reduplication and Metathesis. Linguistic Inquiry 36.2:192222. Heath, Jeffrey. 1976. Antipassivization: A functional typology. In Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Henry Thompson, Kenneth Whistler, Vicky Edge, Jeri J. Jaeger, Ronya Javkin, Miriam Petruck, Christopher Smeall, and Robert D. Van Valin Jr, 202211. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, Calif. Heim, Irene. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of ReinhartAZs approach. In The interpretive tract, ed. Uli Sauerland and Orin Percus, volume 25 of MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 205246. MITWPL, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese. In The Proceedings of the MIT-Harvard Joint Conference (HUMIT 2000), MITWPL 40, 6780. Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL. Holgun, Justin. 2007. The status of ergative case in Basque: A Minimalist approach. Bachelors thesis, Reed College. Available at http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000449.
288
Bibliography
Holmberg, Anders, and Thorbjrg Hrarsdttir. 2003. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 113:9971019. Hualde, Jose. 1991a. Unspecied and unmarked vowels. Linguistic Inquiry 22:205209. Hualde, Jos Ignacio. 1991b. Basque phonology. New York: Routledge. Hualde, Jos Ignacio. 2002. On the loss of ergative displacement in Basque and the role of analogy in the development of morphological paradigms. In The Linguists Linguist: A Collection of Papers in Honour of Alexis Manaster Ramer, ed. Fabrice Cavoto, volume 1, 219230. Munich: Lincom Europa. Hualde, Jos Ignacio. 2003a. Case and number inection of noun phrases. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 171186. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hualde, Jos Ignacio. 2003b. Finite forms. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 205246. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hualde, Jos Ignacio. 2003c. Introduction. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 114. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hualde, Jos Ignacio. 2003d. Nonnite forms. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 196204. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hualde, Jos Ignacio. 2003e. Segmental phonology. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 1565. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hualde, Jos Ignacio. 2006. Analogy and other types of non-phonetic change in Bizkaian Basque. In Studies in Basque and historical linguistics in memory of R.L. Trask, ed. Joseba Andoni Lakarra and Jos Ignacio Hualde, 449469. Bilbo: Euskal Herriko Univertsitatea. Hualde, Jos Ignacio, and Gorka Elordieta. 1992. On the lexical/postlexical distinction: Vowel assimilation in Lekeitio Basque. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 22:159164. Hualde, Jos Ignacio, Gorka Elordieta, and Arantzazu Elordieta. 1994. The Basque dialect of Lekeitio. Bilbo: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Hualde, Jos Ignacio, and Iaki Gaminde. 1998. Vowel interaction in Basque: A nearly exhaustive catalogue. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 28. Hualde, Jos Ignacio, and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, ed. 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Jnsson, Jhannes Gsli. 2009. Covert nominative and dative subjects in Faroese. Nordlyd 36:142 164. Joppen, Sandra, and Dieter Wunderlich. 1995. Argument linking in Basque. Lingua 97:123169.
Bibliography
289
Kari, James. 1989. Afx positions and zones in the Athapaskan verb complex: Ahtna and Navajo. International Journal of American Linguistics 55:424b454. Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Word formation and the Lexicon. In 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference papers, ed. Frances Ingemann, 329. Department of Linguistics, University of Kansas, Lawrence. van Koppen, Marjo. 2005. One probe - two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. Doctoral Dissertation, Leiden University, Leiden. Kramer, Ruth. 2010. The Amharic denite marker and the syntax-morphology interface. Syntax 13:196240. Latte, Pierre. 1944. Grammaire basque (navarro-labourdin littraire). Baiona: Librairie Le livre. Lafon, Ren. 1943. Le systme du verbe basque au XVIe sicle. Bordeaux: ditions Delmas. Lafon, Ren. 1955. Remarques complmentaires sur la structure du verb basque. Bulletin de la Socit de Linguistique de Paris 56:148175. Lafon, Ren. 1961. Sur les formes verbales basques qui contiennent un indice datif. Bulletin de la Socit de Linguistique de Paris 56:139162. Laka, Enara, Leire Olondo, and Iaki Gaminde. 2008. Bermeoko gazteen euskararen aditz morfologiaz. Euskalingua 13:2736. Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Laka, Itziar. 1993a. The structure of inection: A case study in X0 syntax. In Generative studies in Basque linguistics, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 2170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Laka, Itziar. 1993b. Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusative. In Papers on Case and Agreement I, ed. Jonathan D. Bobaljik and Colin Phillips, number 18 in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 149172. Department of Linguistics, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Laka, Itziar. 1996. A brief grammar of Euskara, the Basque language. Ms., Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Available online at http://www.ei.ehu.es/contenidos/informacion/grammar euskara/en doc. Lasnik, Howard. 1981. On two recent treatments of disjoint reference. Journal of Linguistic Research 1:4858.
290
Bibliography
Levin, Beth Carol. 1983. On the nature of ergativity. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A distinction and movement theory. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Marantz, Alec. 1982. Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13:435482. McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1995. Prosodic morphology. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. John Goldsmith, 318366. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mistry, P.J. 1976. Subject in Gujarati: an examination of verb agreement phenomenon. In The notion of subject in South Asian Languages, ed. Manindra K. Verma, 240269. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. Moore, John, and David M. Perlmutter. 2000. What does it take to be a dative subject? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18:373416. Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:273313. Nevins, Andrew. 2010. Locality in Vowel Harmony. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Marked Targets versus Marked Triggers and Impoverishment of the Dual. Linguistic Inquiry 42:(to appear). Nevis, Joel A., and Brian D. Joseph. 1992. Wackernagel afxes: evidence from Balto-Slavic. Yearbook of morphology 3:93111. Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, Positions and Afxes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Clitic Sequences in Nunggubuyu and PF Cnvergence. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19:751826. Oregi Aranburu, Josu. 1974. Euskal-aditzaz zenbait gogoeta. Fontes Linguae Vasconum 17:265 283. Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2007. The Object Agreement Constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:315347. Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1989. Parameters in the grammar of Basque: A GB approach to Basque syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 2003a. Causatives. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 592607. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 2003b. Modal particles. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 316323. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bibliography
291
Oyharabal, Bernard. 1993. Verb agreement with non arguments: On allocutive agreement. In Generative studies in Basque linguistics, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 89 114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Oyharabal, Bernard. 2003a. Relatives. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 762823. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Oyharabal, Bernard. 2003b. Tense, aspect and mood. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 248284. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. Pescarini, Diego. 2010. Elsewhere in Romance: Evidence from clitic clusters. Linguistic Inquiry 41:427444. Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds, ed. Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Wendy K. Wilkins, 262294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The Higher Functional Field. Oxford University Press. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Preminger, Omer. 2009. Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40:619666. Preminger, Omer. 2010. The absence of an implicit object in unergatives: New and old evidence from Basque. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. To appear in Lingua. Available at http://web.mit.edu/omerp/www/les/Preminger---Ergativity-and-Basque-unergatives.pdf. Pylkknen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Raimy, Eric. 2000. The phonology and morphology of reduplication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Randoja, Tiina Kathryn. 1990. The phonology and morphology of Halfway River Beaver. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa. Rebuschi, Georges. 1984. Structure de lnonc en basque. Paris: Socit dtudes linguistiques et anthropologiques de France. Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm. Reuland, Eric. 2005. Agreeing to bind. 505513. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
292 Rezac, Milan. 2003. The Fine Structure of Cyclic Agree. Syntax 6:156182.
Bibliography
Rezac, Milan. 2004. Elements of cyclic syntax: Agree and Merge. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto. Rezac, Milan. 2006. Agreement displacement in Basque: Derivational principles and lexical parameters. Ms., Euskal Herriko Univertsitatea, Vitoria-Gasteiz. Available online at http://members.multimania.co.uk/loargann/. Rezac, Milan. 2008. The forms of dative displacement: From Basauri to Itelmen. In Gramatika jaietan: Festschrift for Patxi Goenaga, ed. Xabier Artiagoitia and Joseba Andoni Lakarra, 709 724. Bilbo: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. c Rez , Milan. 2008. Phi-Agree and theta-related case. In Phi Theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, ed. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Bjar, 83129. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rezac, Milan. 2008. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and absolutive displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26:61106. Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope: Word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. de Rijk, Rudolf P. G. 2007. Standard Basque: A progressive grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The ne structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Robinson, Christine. 2008. Agreement in Scottish Gaelic: A Distributed Morphology analysis. Masters thesis, University College Dublin. Rooryck, Johan. 2006. Binding into pronouns. Lingua 116:15611579. Rotaetxe, Karmele. 1978. Estudio estructural del euskara de Ondrroa. Durango: Leopoldo Zugaza. Rudin, Catherine. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple wh fronting. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6:445501. Sag, Ivan A., Thomas Wasow, and Emily M. Bender. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. Samuels, Bridget. 2010. Phonological derivation by phase: Evidence from Basque. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, ed. Jon Scott Stevens, 166175. Penn Linguistics Club, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Bibliography
293
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Yearbook of Phonology 3:371405. Shlonsky, Ur. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23:443468. Smith, Carlota. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 213276. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Suer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6:391434. Thompson, Chad Lawrence. 1977. Koyukon verb prexes. MA Thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Todol, Jlia. 1992. Variants dels pronoms febles de 3a persona al Pas Valenci: Regles fonosintctiques i morfolgiques subjacents. Zeitschrift fr Katalanistik 5:137160. Torrego, Esther. 1992. Case and agreement structure. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Boston. Trask, R.L. 1977. Historical syntax and Basque verbal morphology: Two hypotheses. In AngloAmerican contributions to Basque studies: Essays in honor of Jon Bilbao, ed. William A. Douglass, Richard W. Etulain, and William H. Jacobsen, 203217. Reno, Nev.: Desert Research Institute Publications on the Social Sciences. Trask, R.L. 1997. The history of Basque. New York: Routledge. Trask, R.L. 2003. The Noun Phrase: nouns, determiners, and modiers; pronouns and names. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 113170. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Travis, Lisa deMena. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Trommer, Jochen. 2010. A postsyntactic morphome cookbook. Paper presented at the Perspectives on the Morphome workshop, Coimbra, October 2010. Tsakali, Vina. 2008. Double oating quantiers in Modern Greek and Pontic. In Microvariation in syntactic doubling, ed. Sjef Barbiers, Olaf Koeneman, Marika Lekakou, and Margreet van der Ham, 189204. Bingley: Emerald. Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 25:79123. Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple Spell-Out. In Working Minimalism, ed. Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 251282. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Verma, Manindra K. 1976. The notion of subject and the data from Nepali. In The notion of subject in South Asian Languages, ed. Manindra K. Verma, 270285. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
294
Bibliography
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. ber ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1:333436. Wanner, Dieter. 1987. Clitic pronouns in Italian: A linguistic guide. Italica 64:410442. Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. Person hierarchy effects without a person hierarchy. In Agreement restrictions, ed. Susann Fischer Roberta DAlessandro and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 281 314. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37.1:111130. de Yrizar, Pedro. 1991. Morfologa del verbo auxiliar guipuzcoano: Estudio dialectolgico. Bilbo: Euskaltzaindia. Available at http://www.euskaltzaindia.net/mvav/guipuzcoano. de Yrizar, Pedro. 1992. Morfologa del verbo auxiliar vizcano: Estudio dialectolgico. Bilbo: Euskaltzaindia. Available at http://www.euskaltzaindia.net/mvav/vizcaino. de Yrizar, Pedro. 1997. Morfologa del verbo auxiliar labortano: Estudio dialectolgico. Bilbo: Euskaltzaindia. Available at http://www.euskaltzaindia.net/mvav/labortano. Zabala, Igone. 2003. Nominal predication: Copulative sentences and secondary predication. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 426448. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. de Zavala, Juan Mateo. 1848. El verbo regular vascongado del dialecto vizcaino. Donostia: Ignacio Ramn Baroja. Zubizarreta, Mara Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Nevins e Arregi 2011

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Nevins e Arregi 2011

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout

Karlos Arregi Andrew Nevins

February 11, 2011

Appendix: Indicative auxiliary paradigms Appendix: Dialect classication Bibliography

Chapter 1 Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

-e (>saitudese) (Leioa, Gaminde 1984:vol 1, 285) -2. PL

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

SYNTAX Merge & Move Agree Cliticization Absolutive Promotion

Section 1.2 Distributed Morphology and the Division of Labor in Word-Formation

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

Section 1.2 Distributed Morphology and the Division of Labor in Word-Formation

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

Section 1.3 The Basque language

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

Section 1.3 The Basque language

Figure 1.3: Basque dialects

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

Section 1.3 The Basque language

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

Subsection 4.3 for a brief explanation of glosses in auxiliary forms.

Section 1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology

32 1.4.1 Argument Structure and case

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

Intransitive sentences vP VP SAbs V v

Section 1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology

34 moskortu-te/apurtu-te. get.drunk-NF /break-NF I gave Jon the book drunk/broken.

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

Section 1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology

(Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:85)

(Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:36)

(Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:86)

(Zamudio, Gaminde 2000

Section 1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology

(Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:91)

(Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:85)

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

Section 1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

Figure 1.4: Basic syntax of Basque sentences

Section 1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

24 The form of these morphemes resembles that of (nonclitic) pronouns.

Section 1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology c.

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

45 (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:406)

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

48 Ive taken good care of myself. (42)

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:180)

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

Section 1.5 Overview of the Book

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Structure of Spellout

Chapter 2 The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement

Chapter 2. The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement

Section 2.2 Clitic placement 2.2 Clitic placement

Chapter 2. The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement

(Turin, Piedmontese, Poletto 2000:142)

Section 2.2 Clitic placement

PartP DPArg Author Singular Part [+Participant]

DPArg Participant Author Singular

(2008) makes a claim similar to (13) for Salish.

Section 2.2 Clitic placement (14)

Chapter 2. The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement

Section 2.2 Clitic placement