Karlos Arregi, Andrew Nevins Auth. Morphotactics Basque Auxiliaries and The Structure of Spellout

Morphotactics
Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

VOLUME 86
Managing Editors
Marcel den Dikken, City University of New York

Liliane Haegeman, University of Ghent, Belgium
Joan Maling, Brandeis University
Editorial Board
Guglielmo Cinque, University of Venice

Carol Georgopoulos, University of Utah
Jane Grimshaw, Rutgers University
Michael Kenstowicz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Hilda Koopman, University of California, Los Angeles
Howard Lasnik, University of Maryland
Alec Marantz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
John J. McCarthy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge
For further volumes:

http://www.springer.com/series/6559
Karlos Arregi Andrew Nevins
Morphotactics
Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure
of Spellout
123
Karlos Arregi Andrew Nevins
Department of Linguistics Department of Linguistics
University of Chicago University College London
1010 E. 59th Street Chandler House, 2 Wakefield Street
Chicago, IL, USA WC1N 1PF London, UK
ISSN 0924-4670
ISBN 978-94-007-3888-1 ISBN 978-94-007-3889-8 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3889-8
Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2012931561
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered
and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of
this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the
Publishers location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.
Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations
are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Ally MacLeod [Scotlands 1978 football
coach] thinks that tactics are a new kind
of mint.
Billy Connolly, b. 1942
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to

victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise
before defeat.
Sun Tzu, b. 500 B.C.E
Preface
This book is about the tactics employed in order to achieve morphological

well-formedness during the Spellout of complex inflectional words. The framework
of Distributed Morphology (DM) was broadly introduced by Halle and Marantz
(1993). 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 inflectional system in DM. In this book, we present such an effort, the
result of which, perhaps unsurprisingly, necessitates a number of modifications and
innovations to the theory itself.
In this case study we focus on finite auxiliaries (traditionally referred to as have
and be) in Basque. Why focus a whole book on two verbs? And not even on
main verbs, rich with lexical content, but a helper verbthe auxiliary form that
supports tense, mood, agreement, and inflection, a would-be porter carrying all of
the grammatical luggage that the main verb cannot be bothered with. It is remarkable
how much action Basque packs into its auxiliariesenough, for example, to have
yielded a 2-volume set entirely devoted to the variety and variation in auxiliary
forms in a single dialect (Biscayan), collected in the indispensable work of de Yrizar
(1992b) (who, all told, compiled a total of 14 volumes entirely devoted to the forms
of Basque auxiliaries in all dialects). This complexity arises because auxiliaries
(a) are obligatory in (almost) every sentence, unlike say English or Romance and
(b) they include cliticization of four different elements as well as complementizer
agreement, and so really is not due to 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 first is to elaborate the potential of
Distributed Morphology as an 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
vii
viii Preface
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
study, but hope that can now be seen with new light in future work.
This book represents a coordinated collaborative effort traversing three con-
tinents, and we are grateful to many people who have encouraged and assisted
us along the way: Iaki Gaminde during our fieldwork in Zamudio, and for help
with this and other Biscayan dialects; Jos Ignacio Hualde and Milan Rezac, who
provided invaluable pointers to dialectal evidence; Ikuska Ansola-Badiola, as an
invaluable and patient source of judgments and nonlinguists insights on Ondarru
Basque; Olatz Mendiola and Xabier Azkue Ibarbia for help in obtaining data from
different Basque dialects; Asaf Bachrach, Jonathan Bobaljik, Hagit Borer, Morris
Halle, Ayesha Kidwai, Gereon Mller, Jochen Trommer, and the participants in the
Advanced Distributed Morphology Course in ABRALIN 2011 in Curitiba, Brazil;
all of these folks rightly demanded (and often suggested ideas for) theoretical
elaboration in numerous places. Two anonymous reviewers provided pages upon
pages of observations, suggestions, and corrections that have led to a great overall
improvement in the finished product. Most important above all during this 5-year
effort has been the support and understanding of our families.
Chicago and London Karlos Arregi

Andrew Nevins
Contents
Abbreviations .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Basque Orthography.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
1 Introduction: The Structure of Spellout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Major Claims of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Distributed Morphology and the Division of Labor
in Word Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.1 An Overview of the Serial and Modular Components . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.2 An Overview of DM Elements and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 The Basque Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.1 Geographic and Demographic Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.2 Orthography and Other Conventions in
Representing Basque Sentences. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.3.3 Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.4.1 Argument Structure and Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.4.2 The Syntax and Morphology of DPs. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.4.3 The Syntax of Auxiliaries: T, C, and Agreement.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1.4.4 The Syntax of Auxiliaries and Pronominal Clitics . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1.4.5 Other Aspects of Verbal Syntax .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1.5 Overview of the Book.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2 The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.2 Clitic Placement .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.2.1 Clitic Generation .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.2.2 Clitic Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.2.3 Alternative Analyses of Cliticization . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.2.4 Summary: The Syntax of Cliticization . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.3 The Person-Case Constraint and Absolutive Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.3.1 The Person-Case Constraint in Basque . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
ix
x Contents
2.3.2 Absolutive Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

2.3.3 Movement Verbs and PCC Effects . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.3.4 Other PCC Repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2.4 Agreement .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.4.1 Multiple Agree .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2.4.2 Agree-Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2.4.3 Complementizer Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
2.4.4 Summary: The Syntax of Agreement .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
2.5 Default Agreement .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
2.6 Complementizers Within the Auxiliary Complex .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
2.7 Conclusion: Cliticization vs. Agreement . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
3 The Morphophonology of Basque Finite Auxiliaries .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.2 Vocabulary Insertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3.2.1 Contextual Restrictions and Linear Adjacency .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3.2.2 Competition Among Vocabulary Entries . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
3.3 Clitic Realization in the Morphophonology . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3.3.1 Clitics and Morpheme Order in the Auxiliary .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3.3.2 The Realization of Clitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
3.3.3 Dative Clitics and Dative Flags . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.3.4 Plural Fission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
3.3.5 On the Absence of Third Person Absolutive Clitics . . . . . . . . . . 136
3.3.6 On Plural Morphology in Basque Finite Verbs .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3.4 The Realization of Agreement on T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
3.4.1 Allomorphy in the Context of Ergative and Dative Clitics . . . 143
3.4.2 Lekeitio .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
3.4.3 Ondarru and Zamudio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
3.4.4 Multiple Agreement in Lekeitio.. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
3.4.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
3.5 The Realization of Auxiliary Morphemes in Previous Accounts . . . . . 163
3.6 Phonological Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
3.6.1 Morpheme-Specific Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
3.6.2 Syllabification and Related Processes . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
3.6.3 Other Phonological Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
3.6.4 Rule Interaction .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
3.6.5 Rules that Apply Across Word Boundaries.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
3.6.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
3.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
4 Deletion Operations Targeting Morphological Markedness . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
4.2 Distinctions Among Types of Postsyntactic Deletion Operations . . . . 202
4.3 Paradigmatic Markedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
4.3.1 Formal/Colloquial Neutralization .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
4.3.2 Paradigmatic Impoverishment in First Singular Clitics . . . . . . . 206
Contents xi
4.4 Syntagmatic Markedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

4.4.1 Dissimilatory Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
4.4.2 3/3 Effects .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
4.5 On the Nonlinearity of Impoverishment . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
4.6 Participant Dissimilation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
4.6.1 Ondarru.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
4.6.2 Zamudio .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
4.6.3 Other Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
4.6.4 On the Potential Diachronic Origins of
Impoverishment Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
4.7 Plural Clitic Impoverishment .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
4.8 A Concise Summary of All Impoverishment Rules Proposed . . . . . . . . 231
4.9 Impoverishment in the Light of Crossmodular
Structural Parallelism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
5 Linearity-Based Morphotactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
5.2 Generalized Reduplication and Constraints on Morpheme Order . . . . 240
5.2.1 Metathesis and Doubling in Spanish Agreement Morphology 241
5.2.2 Noninitiality, Metathesis, and Allomorph
Selection in Old Irish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
5.2.3 Noninitiality in Nonclausal Domains in Amharic
and Lithuanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
5.2.4 Nonfinality and Morphological Epenthesis in
Italian Infinitives .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
5.2.5 Multiple Wh-Movement and Constraints on
Distance to the Edge .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
5.2.6 Morpheme-Specific Ordering Constraints in Athapaskan . . . . 261
5.2.7 Interim Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
5.3 The Linearization of Plural Clitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
5.3.1 Absolutive Clitics and Local Plural Metathesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
5.3.2 Long-Distance Plural Metathesis and Doubling.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
5.3.3 Other Linear Operations Affecting Plural Clitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
5.3.4 Summary: Plural Morphemes and Linearization .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
5.4 Ergative Metathesis and Related Phenomena in Basque
Finite Auxiliaries .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
5.4.1 Noninitiality and Ergative Metathesis . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
5.4.2 Ergative Doubling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
5.4.3 L-Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
5.4.4 Ergative Metathesis and Doubling of Third Person Clitics . . . 288
5.4.5 Summary: Noninitiality and Its Repairs . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
5.5 Ergative Metathesis as a Metathetic Phenomenon .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
5.6 Additional Repairs to T-Noninitiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
5.6.1 Dative Doubling in Oati .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
5.6.2 A Typology of Dative Displacements.. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
5.6.3 Allocutive Metathesis and Doubling .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
xii Contents
5.7 Linearization and Hierarchical Relations . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

5.7.1 Hierachical Relations in the Linear Operations Component.. 322
5.7.2 Root Reduplication in Ondarru . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
5.7.3 Modal Particles and T-Noninitiality . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
5.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
6 Rule Interaction in a Serial and Modular Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
6.2 Testing the Predicted Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
6.2.1 Promotion and Dissimilation: Feeding and Counterbleeding. 346
6.2.2 Absolutive Promotion Opaquely Feeds Ergative Metathesis . 349
6.2.3 Participant Dissimilation Feeds Ergative Metathesis . . . . . . . . . 352
6.2.4 Participant Dissimilation Bleeds Ergative Metathesis . . . . . . . . 354
6.2.5 Participant Dissimilation Bleeds Root Reduplication .. . . . . . . . 355
6.2.6 Promotion, Dissimilation, and Metathesis .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
6.3 Conclusion: Predictions of a Modular and Derivational Theory .. . . . . 359
7 Concluding Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
7.2 Distinguishing Types of Exponents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
7.2.1 Plural Marking as a Microcosm of DM Operations .. . . . . . . . . . 362
7.2.2 A Recap: Why Clitics and Agreement Must Be
Distinguished in Basque .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
7.3 Crossmodular Structural Parallelism .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
7.3.1 Formalism and Features: Fission in Phonology
and Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
7.3.2 Formalism and Features: Markedness and Impoverishment .. 367
7.3.3 Formalism: Metathesis/Reduplication in
Morphology and Phonology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
7.3.4 Architectural Formalism: Lexical Phonology
and Modular Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
7.3.5 Interim Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
7.4 On the Methodological Cycle Between Cross-Dialectal
Breadth and Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
A Indicative Auxiliary Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
B Dialect Classification.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
References .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
Contents xiii
Index of Languages and Basque Dialects .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
Name Index .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405

Index of Basque Auxiliaries .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in example glosses throughout this book:
1 first person
2 second person
3 third person
A absolute inflection
ABL ablative case
ABS absolutive case
ACT activity
ALL allative case
C conjunct inflection
CDECL declarative complementizer
CIMP imperative complementizer
CINT interrogative complementizer
CL clitic
CL . A absolutive clitic
CL . ABL ablative clitic
CL . ACC accusative clitic
CL . ALLOC allocutive clitic
CL . D dative clitic
CL . E ergative clitic
CL . EP epenthetic clitic
CL . GEN genitive clitic
CL . IMPE impersonal clitic
CL . LOC locative clitic
CL . OBJ object clitic
CL . REFL reflexive clitic
CL . SBJ subject clitic
CNEG negative complementizer
COLL colloquial
COM comitative case
xv
xvi Abbreviations
COND conditional
CPST past tense complementizer
CREL relative clause complementizer
CSBJ subjunctive complementizer
DAT dative case
DEF definite article
DF dative flag
DFL default
DIST distributive
DL dual
ERG ergative case
EVID evidential
EXPL expletive subject
F feminine
GEN genitive case
HAB habitual
IMP imperfective
IMPE impersonal
IMPR imperative
IN inessive case
INDEF indefinite
INF infinitive
ITE iterative
L L-morpheme
LGEN locative genitive case
M masculine
MDL middle
NF nonfinite
NPST nonpast
PART partitive case
PCL paucal
PL plural
PPART past participle
PRF perfective
PRS present
PST past
PV preverb
REFL reflexive
SG singular
SBJ subject
SUBJ subjunctive
THM thematic
TRNS transitional
Abbreviations xvii
Apart from standard abbreviations of syntactic categories (T, D, CP, etc.), we also
use throughout the text the following abbreviations for other linguistic terms and for
cross-referencing purposes:
1(st) first person
2(nd) second person
3(rd) third person
A transitive subject
Abs absolutive
Agr agreement
App. Appendix
Appl applicative
auth author
CAgr complementizer agreement
Chap. Chapter
Cl clitic
Comp complementizer
Dat dative
DM Distributed Morphology
DO direct object
Erg ergative
Fig. Figure
IO indirect object
part participant
PCC Person-Case Constraint
periph peripheral
Pl plural
S unaccusative subject
SA speech act
SC structural change
SD structural description
Sect. Section
Sg, sing singular
VI Vocabulary Insertion
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 otherwise have difficulty with. See Sect. 1.3.2 in Chap. 1 for
further details.
dd voiced palatal stop []
dx voiced alveopalatal fricative [Z]
j voiceless velar fricative [x]
ll palatal lateral [L]
palatal nasal []
r alveolar tap [R] or trill [r]
rr alvelolar trill [r]
s voiceless apical alveolar fricative [s]
ts voiceless apical alveolar affricate []
tt voiceless palatal stop [c]
tx voiceless alveopalatal affricate []
tz voiceless laminal alveolar affricate [ ]
x voiceless alveopalatal fricative [S]
y voiced palatal fricative [j]
z voiceless laminal alveolar fricative [s]
xix
Chapter 1
Introduction: The Structure of Spellout
What has traditionally been called morphology is not

concentrated in a single component of the grammar, but rather
is distributed among several different components.
Morris Halle and Alec Marantz
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 may
fall prey to a series of exclusively morphological operations whose motivation
is frequently left unexplored. In this book we attempt to find more sense in the
seemingly ragtag array of morphological rules invoked in analysis of inflectional
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 finite auxiliaries, such as (1), which contains three clitics,
an auxiliary root (-aitu-), and complementizer agreement (-s)1 :
(1) s -aitu -da -s -e (>saitudese)
CL . A .2 - PRS .2. PL - CL . E .1. SG -2.PL -CL.A.PL
(Leioa, Gaminde 1984:Vol. 1, 285)
1 The reader familiar with the Basque linguistic literature will find that our glosses of finite verbs
differ significantly from those in other works. This is due to several important differences in
analysis, for which we provide justification throughout this book. See Sect. 1.4.3 for a summary of
these differences.
K. Arregi and A. Nevins, Morphotactics, Studies in Natural Language 1

and Linguistic Theory 86, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3889-8__1,
2 1 Introduction: The Structure of Spellout
Basque auxiliaries and other inflected 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. inflectional neutralization, clitic placement, allomorph
selection, reordering operations), the Basque finite 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 finite 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 inflectional component: that word-formation is derived through a prin-
cipled 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. Linearizationthe
conversion of a set of unordered sisterhood relations into a total linear orderis a
process that takes place only after the completion of the structure-building opera-
tions of syntax. Assuming that Linearization is after syntax opens the possibility that
other postsyntactic operations may themselves take place before or after lineariza-
tion. In this book we propose that there are two suites of postsyntactic operations,
prelinearization and postlinearization. Whether an operation is postlinearization
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 postlinearization, whereas
feature deletion operations turn out not to be. 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
prelinearization operations necessarily precede morpheme Metathesis operations.
The resulting set of predictions yields a principled view of what the sequence of
postsyntactic 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, syllabification,
and dissimilation have been increasingly understood as the result of universal and
language-specific 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 findings
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
1.2 Distributed Morphology and the Division of Labor in Word Formation 3
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 find kindred parallels within phonological computation. This hypothesis,
Crossmodular Structural Parallelism, holds that the formal properties defined and
exemplified throughout 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 fission as feature splitting, and the adoption of the Generalized Reduplication
formalism for Metathesis and Doublingreflect an overall organization of the
grammar in which computational operations are reused across levels of language
structure with different alphabets.
Our final 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 specifier
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 section, 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, along with a general overview of Basque argument
structure and morphosyntax.
1.2 Distributed Morphology and the Division of Labor

in Word Formation
1.2.1 An Overview of the Serial and Modular Components
A key component of the overall analysis we adopt is that the -featurally (e.g.
person, number, case, tense) sensitive restrictions operating throughout the auxiliary
complex are parcelled out into domains that may be hierarchical, morphological,
or morphophonological, each operating with their own principles. In Fig. 1.1, the
basic components of the model are shown. Syntactic operations include Merge,
Cliticization, Move, and Agree-Link.
Fig. 1.1 The serial and

SYNTAX
modular architecture of Merge & Move
Basque auxiliary Agree-Link
word-formation Cliticization
Absolutive Promotion
POSTSYNTAX
Exponence Conversion
Agree-Copy
Fission
...
Feature Markedness
Participant Dissimilation
Plural Clitic Impoverishment
...
Morphological Concord
Have-Insertion
Complementizer Agreement
...
LINEARIZATION
Linear Operations
Clitic Metathesis and Doubling
...
VOCABULARY INSERTION
...
Distributed Morphology adopts the basic Y-Model of grammar, in which syntactic

structure-building creates hierarchical relations in a tree structure that is then
independently interpreted by the separate modules of Logical Form (LF), and
Phonetic Form (PF)which includes the entire postsyntactic component in Fig. 1.1.
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,
through the postsyntactic component, to the onset of phonological computation as
the Spellout process, and this book is devoted to articulating the structure of this
Spellout. In what follows, therefore, we use Spellout to refer to the procedure or
the sequence of derivational steps, while Postsyntactic component refers to the
modules that follow syntax and precede phonology.
After syntactic operations are complete, the initial postsyntactic 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 (Agree-Link),
occurring within the syntax, and the actual copying of -feature values from Goal to
Probe, which is accomplished through an operation called Agree-Copy, in this first
module. This module also is the locus of Fission 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 Chaps. 2 and 3.
While the first postsyntactic module is essentially responsible for setting up the
Postsyntactic 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 postsyntactic module that we identify in our architecture is
the Feature Markedness module. This component is one in which well-formedness
is evaluated through specific morphotactic constraints on feature cooccurrence,
which may call for the enactment of repair operations that delete either these fea-
tures or the terminals that contain them. Among the operations in this component on
which we focus are the syntagmatic markedness-triggered processes of Participant
Dissimilation and Plural Clitic Impoverishment, both discussed in Chap. 4.
The third postsyntactic module is responsible for what we term Morphological
Concord, namely, the operations responsible for setting up particular terminals
for Vocabulary Insertion based on postsyntactic structural descriptions. These
operations involve feature insertion, though crucially only those features that are
particular to morphology. Among these, for example, is the operation of 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 Feature Markedness module that may delete
such a clitic for postsyntactic 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 specifically postsyntactic features.2
2 As such, it would also be the locus of the introduction of theme vowels and conjugation class
features in languages (unlike Basque) that have these, such as the Indo-European and Bantu
languages.
Linearization constitutes a definitive anchor point in the postsyntactic derivation,

necessarily providing a clean divide between operations insensitive to the linear
order of terminals, occurring before Linearization, and those which are sensitive
to linearity-based ordering morphotactics among terminals, thereby following
Linearization. We provide an list of rules for mapping hierarchical, unlinearized
word trees into linear order in Chap. 2, Sect. 2.2.2. The operations that follow
Linearization, discussed in detail in Chap. 5, include Metathesis and Doubling
phenomena, which occur in order to reorder particular terminals-of-exponence
according to modular well-formedness conditions, and necessarily apply prior to
Vocabulary Insertion.
Vocabulary Insertion constitutes the final stage of the Postsyntactic 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 those of Feature Markedness, which delete certain features,
Morphological Concord, which determine the value for voice-sensitive allomorphy,
and clitic Metathesis, which alter the linear order of given terminals. Phonological
rules (e.g. syncope, glide formation, palatalization, prosodically motivated
reduplication, etc.) begin to apply once Vocabulary Insertion is complete. This
entire flow of information from syntactic structure-building to phonological rule
application is schematized in Fig. 1.1, and while the details of the particular modules
are provided in Chaps. 25, the intermodular interactions that illustrate the overall
ordered architecture are presented in Chap. 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 final realization of the auxiliary complex. In
discussing them, we provide some of the necessary background that is shared by
most researchers of Distributed Morphology (DM), 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 specific parts of the book in which readers may directly seek
further explanation.
Syntactic structure-building The basic structure-building operation within min-
imalist 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, referred to as the Postsyntactic component
in this book. That is to say, words do not enter the syntax fully inflected, as
in lexicalist theories of grammar. Rather, lexical items such as verbs pick up
abstract inflectional features through a mechanism of Agree, which is a feature
value-copying relation. Under Agree, an item such as T (called the Probe) has
unvalued -features (e.g. person, number, and gender) and initiates a search. The
Probe finds the closest noun phrase under c-command (called the Goal), and copies
the -feature values to itself. These features are abstract binary features with
values such as [+participant], [+feminine], etc. Cliticization operations may enact
structure-building in which phrasal categories (i.e. XPs) move to designated host
positions. Finally, within the syntax, syntactic heads (of X 0 category) such as the
verbal root, Aspect and Tense may form more complex, branching X0 s through
the operation of Head Movement. Note, therefore, that in the present approach, the
atoms on the leaves of syntactic trees are not precompiled words (as is the defining
property of Lexicalism; see Julien 2007 for discussion), but rather morphemes.
After the construction of complex X0 s (also called M-words) through various
syntactic operations, however, there may be numerous syntactic (and postsyntactic)
operations that specifically target M-words.
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 2008b; Nevins 2007)
a. [author] distinguishes 1st person from 2nd and 3rd person
b. [participant] distinguishes 1st and 2nd person from 3rd person
c. [formal] distinguishes 2nd person formal from 2nd person colloquial
d. [ singular] distinguishes plural from singular number
e. [ feminine] distinguishes feminine from masculine gender
(3) Tense
[ past] distinguishes past from nonpast tense
(4) Case (Calabrese 2008)
a. [+motion, peripheral] = ergative
b. [+motion, +peripheral] = dative
c. [motion, peripheral] = absolutive
Certain terminals enter the syntax with features valued. For example, pronouns or
noun phrases (henceforth referred to as DPs) enter the syntax with their features for
[author], [participant], [plural], and [feminine] already specified, and a tense
node enters with its value for [past] already specified. Other terminals enter the
syntax with certain features unvalued, a status notated as [uF] (e.g. [uauthor]), 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 togetherin 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 Chap. 4, Sect. 2.4.2. The Agree procedure, as
proposed by Chomsky (2001) and related work, is fractionated into two operations:
one syntactic, and one postsyntactic. The first 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 Exponence Conversion module, in which the actual
-feature values of the Goal are copied onto the Probe. 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 operate at the level of individual
features, and as such, the actual copying of specific feature values must be deferred
until the postsyntactic component. The empirical motivation is based on the fact
that certain very specific 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 Cliticizationall 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 inflectional morphology is a reflection
of what occurred in the syntax, which necessarily follows the establishment of
feature-copying relations. The postsyntactic components as a whole have the task
of converting abstract morphosyntactic features (such as [past, singular], etc.)
into phonological content (such as prefixes, suffixes, etc.). This conversion process
is what is called Spellout, and this book is dedicated to elaborating the structure of
the Spellout procedure. Following standard terminology in DM, we refer to terminal
nodes (independently of whether they have phonological content) as morphemes,
and to the phonological strings that realize them as exponents.
The M-word domain The domain for both feature-markedness and linearity-
based morphotactic restrictions mentioned below is the M-word, a morphosyntactic
unit defined based on the notion of projection. The M-word is defined by an X 0
projection that is not immediately dominated by any other X 0 projection.
Morphological well-formedness Importantly, the modules within the post-
syntactic component have their own proprietary well-formedness requirements,
some of which are universal and some of which are language-specific. Thus, for
example, while there is no problem in the syntax for a single syntactic terminal
to contain both the features [+author] (representing first person) and [+feminine],
a great majority of the worlds languages do not allow these two features to co-
occur within inflectional morphology. In languages that disallow the cooccurrence
of [+author, +feminine] as explicitly morphologically realized, this is due to a
well-formedness requirement specific to the Feature Markedness module within
the postsyntactic component, banning the cooccurrence 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 satisfy the well-formedness requirements of this grammatical module. One of the
fundamental operations that takes place in order to resolve morphological feature
cooccurrence 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, first proposed as a mechanism
by Bonet (1991) and Noyer (1992), enacts deletion of a morphological feature
(or just its value) 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 first 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 first person is
expressed. In other words, a consequence of this Impoverishment rule is that the
gender distinction for this word (which is perhaps even still expressed on agreeing
words that lack person features) is neutralized on the affected node, failing to be
morphologically expressed. Importantly, in this book we adopt a point of view
under which 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 neu-
tralization 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. Although some Impoverishment rules target feature
values rather than entire features, we informally refer to all of them as feature
deletion rules.
Obliteration operations Obliteration is the most radical type of deletion operation
that can occur within the postsyntactic component. Unlike Impoverishment rules,
which delete a feature on a terminal, obliteration rules delete an entire terminal.
(We use the terms terminal node and terminal interchangeably in the text.) For
example, while an Impoverishment rule might delete [+feminine] on a T node
that also contains [+author], an Obliteration rule would delete the entire T 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 the affected node.
Fission Fission is an operation that transforms one terminal node into two, and
in doing so splits up the features that previously cooccured within a single node.
In this book, we depart from previous treatments of Fission (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 [author]) cannot
cooccur 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 Re-Merge operations (these latter of which operate only in concert
with Agree). The syntactic computation does not operate directly on phonolog-
ical content, nor does it contain statements of linear orderonly 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 accom-
plished by the procedure of Linearization. Linearization is a deterministic process
that occurs postsyntactically at a specific 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 word-internal 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 the root; second, through the insertion of an epenthetic morpheme
with no correspondent in the syntax, whose purpose is specifically to satisfy this
Noninitiality requirement, and finally, through Metathesis operations, which may
reorder the sequence that results from the Linearization procedure. In our proposal,
these 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 AB as BA) and
Doubling (reordering AB as ABA or BAB), which is very effective in understanding
cross-dialectal microvariation.
Vocabulary Insertion Vocabulary Insertion is the only operation of all the ones
discussed here that consistently occurs for all terminals, even if no others apply.
Vocabulary Insertion follows the application of all of these other operations.
While these other operations modify features or terminals (either by deleting fea-
tures, deleting terminals, or cleaving features into separate terminals), Vocabulary
Insertion is the most important process during Spelloutthe 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 specifically 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 entry that maximally realizes the features at that node. The choice of
which vocabulary entry to use at a node is based on which both 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 entry 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 vocabulary
1.3 The Basque Language 11
entry, one which carries very few inherent features (i.e. it is underspecified), and for
this reason is compatible with a wide variety of apparently heterogeneous feature-
bundles. In this book, we propose a modification of Halles (1997) formulation of the
Subset Principle, in which the category feature in the specification of a vocabulary
entry and in 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 itself is that Impoverish-
ment rules delete morphosyntactic features, thus rendering richer vocabulary entries
ineligible for insertion, and thus leading to an emergence of the less specified
vocabulary entry being used to realize a terminal, often the elsewhere vocabulary
entry. Since Vocabulary Insertionthe supplying of a linguistic expression with
phonological contentfollows all syntactic computation as well as morphology-
specific adjustments to the structure that was generated and delivered 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.

Section 1.3.1 provides some basic geographic and demographic description, includ-
ing 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. Section 1.3.2 summarizes the main
features of Basque orthography used in this book, as well as certain conventions
that we use in representing examples. Finally, Sect. 1.3.3 provides 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 Southwestern France (Fig. 1.2). There are seven
Basque provinces: Bizkaia (often referred to as Biscay in English), Gipuzkoa
(Guipuscoa), Araba (Alava), and Nafarroa (Navarre) are under Spanish sovereignty,
while 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 official language of the Basque Autonomous
Community, a Spanish administrative region formed by the provinces of Biscay,
Guipuscoa, and Alava, and governed by the Basque Government.
The external history of the Basque language is fairly complex, especially in
recent years (Trask 1997:149; Hualde 2003c). This makes it fairly difficult to
estimate the number of speakers. According to the Department of Culture of the
Fig. 1.2 Location of the Basque Country and the seven Basque provinces
Government of the Basque Autonomous Community, there were 665,750 speakers

of Basque of age 16 and older in all of the Basque Country as of 2006.3 This number
includes both native and non-native speakers of varying degrees of fluency, and with
very rare exceptions they are all bilingual speakers of Spanish or French.4
Beginning with Bonapartes (1869) seminal work on Basque dialectology,
the 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 depicts the
extension of these dialects in 1970 according to de Yrizar (1992b), which we follow
in our classification of local varieties into a dialectal taxonomy (see below).5 The
standard dialect of Basque is called Batua (unified). 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 has not offered a complete
theoretical analysis of all morphosyntactic aspects of the auxiliary in a local
3 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.
4 Many of these speakers have learned Basque as a second language in an academic setting.
According to the same source, 406,466 speakers are Basque-dominant bilinguals or balanced
bilinguals.
5 The nonsolid lines in the map in Fig. 1.3 represent borders of the provinces. Note that both High
and Low Navarrese are split up into two separate dialects each in the map, which also includes
the now extinct Roncalais dialect. Zuazo (1998) proposes important revisions to the traditional
classification of dialects (see also Zuazo 2003, 2008). For instance, although the boundaries of
Biscayan (which he labels Western) are roughly the same as in Fig. 1.3, his classification of
this dialect into subdialects differs significantly from the traditional one established by Bonaparte.
These details are not important within the current analysis of Basque verbal morphology.
Fig. 1.3 Basque dialects
Table 1.1 Dialectal

Lekeitio Ondarru Zamudio
classification of Lekeitio,
Ondarru, and Zamudio Dialect Biscayan Biscayan Biscayan
Basque Subdialect Eastern Eastern Western
Variety Markina Markina Plentzia
Subvariety Northwestern Ondarru Southern
(i.e. non-Batua) variety of the language. We contend that significant progress can
be made in understanding the division of labor between syntactic and postsyntactic
operations by looking at specific 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. Two of our main sources of data are Gaminde
(1984) and de Yrizar (1992b). In the latter, 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 (1992b:Vol. 1, 14, 1014, 542546).6 Appendix B provides a taxonomic
affiliation for all dialects/varieties referred to throughout the book. We refer to the
Basque spoken in these and other places in the Basque Country either as dialects
or varieties, except in cases where these terminological distinctions are crucial.
6 Ingiving 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 1992b) in the literature,
and the name of the town of Lekeitio is given as Lequeitio in de Yrizar (1992b). See Appendix B.
Table 1.2 Number of

speakers age 5 and older as of Town Basque speakers Total
2001 in Lekeitio, Ondarru, Lekeitio 6,103 7,040
and Zamudio Ondarru 7,825 9,329
Zamudio 1,426 2,918
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 1.2.7
It is important to note that these three varieties are not necessarily representative
of dialectal variation in Basque, not even in the Biscayan dialect. The Biscayan
split between Western and Eastern subdialects is reflected in some of the aspects of
the realization of auxiliaries in Zamudio (Western) and Lekeitio/Ondarru (Eastern),
as discussed at various points in Chap. 3 (especially Sect. 3.6). However, we have
not found any notable 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 (Chaps. 23), Absolutive Promotion
(Chap. 2), Participant Dissimilation (Chap. 4), and Ergative Metathesis (Chap. 5).
The reason for choosing these three varieties was mainly that their finite 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 ordering of
syntactic and morphological operations proposed in this book and discussed in detail
in Chap. 6. Finally, all three varieties have Ergative Metathesis and illustrate the type
of dialectal variation in the application of this rule discussed in Chap. 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 general
claims about Basque verbs couched in a constrained theory of morphology.
The reader should also note that the dialects discussed in this book are not stan-
dard varieties of Basque, in any usual sense of the term standard. First, they differ
significanly from Batua, especially in their auxiliary forms. Second, they are also
7 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 find out, there are no reliable current statistics on the number of speakers of local varieties
of Basque. de Yrizar (1992b:Vol. 1) estimates that in 1970, 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 figures
seem to be more reliable indicators of the number of speakers of each variety.
distinct 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 (see Sect. 1.3.2 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 Differ-
ential Object Marking (Sect. 1.4.1 below) are very common in Basque, but they are
also perceived to be due to Spanish influence, 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
in this book is based on Batua orthography, adapted to reflect some phonological
idiosyncrasies of the Biscayan varieties studied here. We limit out comments here
to some salient features of Basque spelling, sufficient 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 p. xix).
In Basque phonology the alveolar tap [R] and trill [r] are contrastive intervo-
calically. 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 (alveo)palatal consonant system, due in part to
palatalization processes subject to dialectal variation. This justifies the use of other
orthographic conventions the reader might not be familiar with. There are two
voiceless alveopalatal 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 changes relatively recently. Thus, for younger speakers dd is
a voiced alveopalatal affricate [], tt is a voiceless alveopalatal affricate [], and ll
is a voiced palatal fricative [j]. 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 Sect. 1.3.3 below.
Several Spanish borrowings have a voiced palatal fricative [j] (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 voiceless velar fricative [x]. Lekeitio has an additional
voiced alveopalatal 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 finite auxiliaries,
we adopt several conventions in representing these words in the presentation of data.
Consider the following illustrative example:
(6) Liburu-0/ emo-n n -e -tz -n. (>netzan)
book-ABS.SG give-PRF CL.E.1.SG -PST.3.SG -CL.D.3.SG -CPST
I gave the book to him. (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 first line with the glosses in the second.8
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 of an auxiliary differs
from the surface form (due to the operation of phonological processes discussed
in Sect. 3.6 of Chap. 3), the latter is given in parentheses off to the right, 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 carried
out fieldwork for both Ondarru and Zamudio Basque. Most of the Ondarru data
are from fieldwork conducted at different times between 1998 and 2010, and part
of the Zamudio data are from fieldwork conducted in that town in June of 2007.
We have also obtained data from Lekeitio, Ondarru, Zamudio, and other dialects
8 See Sect. 1.4.3 for a brief explanation of glosses in auxiliary forms.

from the theoretical and descriptive literature on Basque. Specifically, 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 of these sources
with de Yrizar (1992b), 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 provided in Vol. 1, pp. 87141
(which includes all towns belonging to the same subvariety as Lekeitio), the Ondarru
forms in Vol. 1, pp. 213232, and the Zamudio forms in Vol. 1, pp. 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 Appendix A. 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 monotransitive auxiliaries
(Table A.6 in Appendix A). Most of these gaps are due to Differential Object
Marking (DOM), through which (first and second person) animate direct objects are
marked with dative instead of absolutive case (Sect. 1.4.1 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
first 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
fill these gaps with data from de Yrizar (1992b) (see previous paragraph for specific
page numbers), 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 (1992b) are not in common use.9 Forms taken from
this source are in italics in the tables in Appendix A.
A related issue has to do with cases where a given source includes 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 Appendix A. At several points in Chaps. 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
fieldwork). 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 described in Sect. 1.3.2 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.10
The voiced alveopalatal fricative [Z] in Lekeitio is represented as in Hualde et al.
9 For instance, Gaminde (2000:373) notes that the few monotransitive auxiliaries with a first or
second person absolutive clitic that he has gathered are all from older speakers (in their 60s or
70s). Even these speakers prefer DOM-triggered ditransitive forms.
10 Similarly, all instances of ts in Biscayan are replaced with tz.
(1994), but we represent it as dx. While 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 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
auxiliaries 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
justified given our focus on the syntax and morphology of auxiliaries, which act 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
germane to the focus of this study. 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 described in Gaminde (2000) (written in Basque).
We concentrate here on three aspects of Basque grammar: argument structure and
case (Sect. 1.4.1), the structure of DPs (Sect. 1.4.2), and different aspects of verbal
syntax (Sects. 1.4.31.4.5). The latter sections also provide an outline of our major
claims about finite verbal morphosyntax in Basque, and of differences with respect
to previous analyses, to be discussed in more depth in the rest of this book.
1.4.1 Argument Structure and Case
Although it can be classified as a free word order or discourse-configurational

language. Basque sentences are SOVAux in their neutral order, reflecting a largely
head-final 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)
1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology 19
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)
book-ABS.SG give-PRF L -PRS.3.SG -CL.D.3.SG -CL.E.1.SG
lagun-ari.
friend-DAT.SG
Ive 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-inflectional system. Direct objects of transitive verbs (DO) and subjects of
unaccusatives (S) are marked as absolutive, and ergative is reserved for transitive
subjects (A).11 Basque is not a split ergative language along tense/aspectual or
person/animacy lines: the generalizations given above hold regardless of these
factors.12 Indirect objects (IO) are marked with dative case.
Transitive subjects are generated in the specifier of v, and direct objects and
unaccusative subjects are the complements of V. Abstracting away from higher func-
tional projections, monotransitive and unaccusative sentences have the following
structures (recall that, in concert with claims outlined in Sect. 1.2, we do not assume
that these structures contain precedence relations in the syntax; these are added at
Linearization in the postsyntactic component):
(8) Monotransitive sentences
vP
AErg v
VP v
DOAbs V
(9) Unaccusative sentences
vP
VP v
SAbs V
11 Subjects of unergative verbs also bear ergative case. See Sect. 2.5 in Chap. 2 for examples. We
adopt the standard assumption that they have the same syntax as subjects of transitive predicates.
12 The progressive construction in Basque displays a case of an apparent split, since its subject is
always absolutive, even with transitive predicates. As shown in Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (1987),
the progressive in fact involves a biclausal structure, which Laka (2006) uses as evidence against a
split ergativity view of the phenomenon. See Coon (2010) for an extension of this biclausal analysis
to aspect-based ergativity splits in other languages.
We discuss immediately below how these arguments acquire case.13

External arguments (A) have ergative case. Specifically, v selects for a specifier
with a KP projection containing ergative case features.14 Although this is often
taken to be a configuration for inherent case (i.a. Oyharabal 1992; Laka 2005;
Woolford 2006), we do not assume that ergative case is inherent in Basque (in the
sense that it is a case necessarily acquired in the base position of the argument),
given the arguments to the contrary provided in Artiagoitia (2001), Holgun (2007),
Preminger (2012) and Rezac et al. (2011). We summarize one such argument from
the latter source here. In non-Biscayan dialects (including Batua, the standard),
modal behar must is a raising verb whose derived subject has ergative case,
regardless of the predicate type in the lower clause15 :
(10) Raising to ergative with a transitive predicate
a. Jon-ek eta Miren-ek lagun-ei liburu-ak bidal-iko
Jon-ERG and Miren-ERG friend-DAT.PL book-ABS.PL send-FUT
d -izki -o -e -0/ -te. (>dizkiete)
L - PRS .3. PL - CL . D .3 - CL . D . PL - CL . E .3 - CL . E . PL
Jon and Miren will send the books to their friends. (Batua)
b. Jon-ek eta Miren-ek lagun-ei liburu-ak bidal-i behar
Jon-ERG and Miren-ERG friend-DAT.PL book-ABS.PL send-NF must
d -izki -o -e -0/ -te. (>dizkiete)
L - PRS .3. PL - CL . D .3 - CL . D . PL - CL . E .3 - CL . E . PL
Jon and Miren must send the books to their friends.
(Batua, Rezac et al. 2011:16)
(11) Raising to ergative with an unaccusative predicate
a. Jon-/0/ eta Miren-/0/ etorr-iko d -ira.
Jon-ABS and Miren-ABS come-FUT L -PRS.3.PL
Jon and Miren will come. (Batua)
b. Jon-ek eta Miren-ek etorr-i behar
Jon-ERG and Miren-ERG come-NF must
d -u -0/ -te.
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . E .3 - CL . E . PL
Jon and Miren must come. (Batua, Rezac et al. 2011:16)
13 See, among others, Ortiz de Urbina (1989:5161), Oyharabal (1992), Laka (1993b, 2005),
Fernndez and Albizu (2000), Rezac (2004, 2008c), Holgun (2007) and Rezac et al. (2011) for
alternative analyses of case assignment in Basque.
14 See Sect. 2.2.1 for discussion on the relation between case and KP.
15 This argument cannot be replicated in Biscayan varieties, including the ones studied here, in
which this raising verb does not determine the case on the derived subject, which is instead
ergative or absolutive according to properties of the lower predicate. For instance, the subject of
the counterpart of (11b) in Biscayan is absolutive, not ergative.
As shown in the (b) examples, the subjects of both transitive (10) and unaccusative
(11) predicates have ergative case when raised in behar sentences. As shown by
the contrast with their nonraising counterparts in the (a) examples, ergative case is
determined by behar, not by the embedded predicate. Rezac et al. (2011:1620)
provide several types of evidence that behar is a raising (as opposed to control)
verb, including the fact that its ergative subject can form an idiom with the lower
predicate:
(12) Evidence for raising: idiom interpretation
a. Zazpi behi makal-0/ etorr-iko d -ira.
seven cow feeble-ABS come-FUT L -PRS.3.PL
Hard times are ahead. (Batua)
b. Zazpi behi makal-ek etorr-i behar d -u -0/ -te
seven cow feeble-ERG come-NF must L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.3 -CL.E.PL
oraindik.
still
Hard times must still be ahead. (Batua, Rezac et al. 2011:17)
We assume that behar is a raising predicate of category v, and can thus trigger
A-movement to its specifier, where the moved argument acquires ergative case. In
sum, ergative case is not inherent. Although DPs with ergative case are typically
(external) arguments of v (e.g. (10a)), ergative can also surface on a DP moved to
that position, as in (10b), (11b), and (12b).
On the other hand, absolutive on the internal argument (S or O) is the default case
in Basque, and does not require case assignment or selection of any sort. We assume
that these arguments remain caseless in the syntax, and are supplied with unmarked
absolutive case features postsyntactically, in the Exponence Conversion module.
They thus contrast with ergative arguments, which acquire case in the syntax. In
order to distinguish the two sources of case morphology, we refer to cases acquired
in the syntax (i.e. both structural and inherent) as syntactic.
While syntactic cases such as ergative and dative (see below) are thus determined
in terms of hierarchically defined configurations in the syntax, absolutive case is
a purely postsyntactic phenomenon, supplied by default. The distinction between
(case) features that depend on a highly specific syntactically determined distribution
and those that are merely acquired as the result of a redundancy rule (of the form
[ ] [peripheral, motion]) parallels other analytic treatments found in modular
approaches to the division of labor between syntax and morphology, such as Legate
(2008), in which reference to absolutive case may be necessary for the conditioning
of certain allomorphic processes. Indeed, in Sect. 3.3.4 of Chap. 3 we demonstrate
that the allomorphy of the plural clitic exponents -e and -te in the Berastegi variety
of Basque requires reference to absolutive case, thereby necessitating a limited role
of the postsyntactic component in introducing the features [peripheral, motion]
into otherwise case-absent representations.
It is worth discussing certain phenomena related to the distribution of noun
phrases that have been used to argue for a syntactic determination of absolutive
case. Rezac et al. (2011) discuss the following paradigm as a potential source of
evidence against a postsyntactic default case theory of absolutive:
(13) CP vs. DP as the complement of an adjective
a. Beldur n -aiz -0/ etorr-iko d -e -la.
afraid CL.A.1.SG-PRS.1.SG-be come-FUT L -PRS.3.SG -CDECL
Im afraid that hell come. (Batua, Rezac et al. 2011:37)
b. *Beldur n -aiz -0/ hori-0.
/
afraid CL.A.1.SG -PRS.1.SG -be that-ABS.SG
Im afraid of that. (Batua, Rezac et al. 2011:37)
Following Pesetskys (1982) account of similar facts in English, Rezac et al. (2011)
take the source of the ungrammaticality of (13b) to be a Case Filter violation, under
the assumption that the internal argument of beldur afraid is not in a case position.
This is not problematic for the clausal argument in (13a), which by hypothesis is not
subject to the Case Filter, but it is if the argument is a DP, as in (13b).16
If this were the only available explanation for the contrast (13), it would be
evidence for the Case Filter in Basque, and would therefore provide an argument
against our hypothesis that DPs in absolutive position do not have case in the syntax.
However, McFadden (2004) provides an alternative analysis of paradigms of this
sort that overcomes certain shortcomings of the Case Filter-based explanation (see
McFadden 2004:7578 for details). The account is readily applicable to Basque.
Briefly, the reason why an absolutive (i.e. syntactically caseless in our theory) DP
is not grammatical as the internal argument in (13) is that beldur afraid selects for
an internal argument with genitive case:
(14) Genitive complement of adjectives
Horr-en beldur n -aiz -0.
/
that-GEN.SG afraid CL.A.1.SG -PRS.1.SG -be
Im afraid of that. (Batua)
Therefore, what is wrong with the absolutive-marked DP in (13b) is not that it is in
a caseless position, but that it is in a genitive case position.
Evidence that ergative and absolutive cases are not T-related in Basque comes
from some nonfinite clauses, where the distribution of cases in arguments is identical
to finite clauses17 :
16 Note that the experiencer argument (pro-droped in (13)) has absolutive case, reflected by
absolutive cliticization in the main verb be. Rezac et al. (2011) assume that this is the reason
why absolutive case is not available for the internal argument of beldur afraid.
17 Basque has a complex system of nonfinite sentence embedding. Nonfinite verbs can bear a
number of different inflectional affixes, depending on the selecting verb and other largely syntactic
factors. This morphology correlates to a certain extent with properties of the subject such as
case and control (Ortiz de Urbina 1989:166188; San Martin 2004). Since these distinctions
are not important here, we simply gloss all of them as NF. See Hualde (2003d), Artiagoitia
(15) 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. (Ondarru)
b. [ 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)
As in finite 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 finite T, the fact that the distribution of absolutive and ergative case is the
same in finite and some nonfinite clauses provides evidence that this head is not
involved in assigning these cases. This is compatible with the claims made above
that ergative is a case selected by v, and that absolutive is a default case.
Consider next indirect objects. With one exception noted below, they are gener-
ated above absolutive arguments in the specifier of the head Appl. This head selects
for a KP in its specifier with inherent dative case (dative case is thus syntactic, in the
sense defined above). In this book, we concentrate on two types of indirect objects:
those appearing in ditransitive sentences, and experiencer arguments in intransitive
psych-predicates.18
Several works provide thorough argumentation that dative objects outscope
absolutives in ditransitive sentences, including Montoya (1998), Elordieta
(2001:Chap. 5) and Oyharabal (2010). We follow the latter in adopting a low
applicative analysis (Pylkknen 2008):
(16) Ditransitive sentences
vP
AErg v
VP v
ApplP V
IODat Appl
DOAbs Appl
In this structure, both internal arguments are generated in a projection of the head
Appl that is the complement of V.
(2003a:737752, 2003b:656710) and Oyharabal (2003a:790795) for detailed descriptions of

the facts, and Hualde et al. (1994:110117, 182209) for Lekeitio.
18 The syntax of dative arguments in Basque is quite complex. For a more complete picture of this
aspect of Basque syntax, as well as alternative analyses to the one adopted here, see, among others,
E. Arregi and Ormazabal (2003), Rezac (2008b), Etxepare and Oyharabal (2010), Ormazabal and
Romero (2010), Fernndez and Ortiz de Urbina (2010) and others cited below.
Certain psych-predicates provide examples of indirect objects in intransitive

(unaccusative) sentences:
(17) 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 specifier of an
Appl head above VP19 :
(18) Applicative intransitive sentences
vP
ApplP v
IODat Appl
VP Appl
SAbs V
Evidence that the dative experiencer is generated above the absolutive argument
in these psych-predicates is provided in Joppen and Wunderlich (1995), Ortiz de
Urbina (2003a:598599), Artiagoitia (2003c:630632), and Rezac (2008c:7076).
These dative-absolutive frame predicates contrast with certain intransitive move-
ment verbs that have an optional dative goal argument:
(19) 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 has arrived for Miren. (Ondarru)
In the latter, the absolutive argument is generated above the dative argument, as
demonstrated by the same type of evidence showing that the c-command order is
the reverse in dative experiencer psych-predicates (see references cited above). As
discussed in Rezac (2008c: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, Absolutive Promotion, a PCC-repair, only occurs
in this type of predicate. See Sect. 2.3 in Chap. 2 for our analysis of Basque PCC
effects 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 Sect. 2.3.2 in Chap. 2. For instance,
19 Thisstructure 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 additionally assume a v head
above ApplP, in line with the structure proposed for other predicate types above.
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.
While the argument can surface as absolutive, the clitic doubling it in the auxiliary
is obligatorily ergative -su, not absolutive s- (see Sect. 1.4.4 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 first and second person (Hualde et al.
1994:125127; Austin 2006; Fernndez and Rezac 2010; Fernndez and Ortiz de
Urbina 2010). For instance, the following is a grammatical alternative to (7b):
(20) Differential Object Marking
Su-k ni-ri ikus-i
you(Sg)-ERG me-DAT see-PRF
d -o -t -su. (>stasu)
L - PRS .3. SG - CL. D.1. SG - CL . E .2. SG
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, acquire dative case in the syntax.
To conclude this overview of argument structure and case in Basque, 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, as shown in the following example:
(21) 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 subject is covert in (7a), and so is the ergative subject in
(7c). Pro-drop of a dative argument is illustrated in the following (cf. (17)):
(22) 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 may be tempting to relate this property of arguments to the agreement and
pronominal clitic morphemes that cross-reference them in the finite auxiliary
(Sects. 1.4.31.4.4). However, pro-drop of all three types of arguments is also pos-
sible in nonfinite clauses, even though these do not have inflected auxiliaries with
pronominal clitics or agreement:
(23) Pro-drop in nonfinite 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)
For instance, the embedded object in (23a) is null, and both the subject and object
are in (23b).
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 sufficient 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.
Adjectives and some determiners are postnominal; other DP elements are
prenominal:
(24) Nominal modifiers
a. lagun andi-xe
friend great-ABS.SG
the great friend (absolutive) (Ondarru)
b. etxe-ko dxaui-a
house-LGEN.SG owner-ABS.SG
the owner of the house (absolutive)(Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:85)
(25) DP-initial determiners
a. edosein geuse-0/
any thing-ABS
anything (free choice; absolutive) (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:36)
b. sein gixon-0/
which man-ABS
which man (absolutive) (Ondarru)
(26) DP-final determiners
a. gixon bi-0/
man two-ABS
two men (absolutive) (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:86)
b. nebarraba gusti-ek
sibling all-ABS.PL
all the siblings (absolutive) (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000)
For descriptive purposes, we include quantifiers such as numerals in the category of
determiners, as illustrated above.
Table 1.3 Nonlocative cases of etxe house in Lekeitio

Absolutive Ergative Dative Genitive Benefactive Comitative
Def.Sg etxi-a etxi-ak etxi-ari etxi-en etxi-entzat etxi-agas
Def.Pl etxi-ak etxi-ak etxi-ari etxi-en etxi-entzat etxi-aki
Indef etxe-0/ etxe-k etxe-ri etxe-n etxe-ntzat etxe-gas
Table 1.4 Locative cases of etxe house in Lekeitio

Inessive Allative Directional Ablative Loc. genitive
in/on/at to towards from of, from
Def.Sg etxi-an etxe-ra etxe-rutz etxe-tik etxe-ko
Def.Pl etxi-etan etxi-etara etxi-etarutz etxi-etatik etxi-etako
Indef etxe-tan etxe-tara etxe-tarutz etxe-tatik etxe-tako
The last word in the DP is inflected for definiteness, number, and case. Most
examples given above are in absolutive form; other cases are exemplified by the
following:
(27) DPs in nonabsolutive cases
a. boligrafo morau-agas
pen purple-COM.SG
with the purple pen (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:91)
b. edosein erri-ten
any town-IN
in any town (free choice) (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:85)
Tables 1.3 and 1.4 contain the different inflected forms of the noun etxe house
in Lekeitio (adapted from Hualde et al. 1994:8795). These tables reflect the
traditional distinction between nonlocative and locative cases in Basque, justified
in large part on morphological grounds.20
Not included in these tables is so-called partitive case inflection. 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:549554). It is illustrated in the following example:
(28) 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)
20 As shown in Tables 1.3 and 1.4, definite 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 pp. 8795 in that work for Lekeitio inflected forms that include accent marking.
As shown in this example, its form is -ik (-rik after a vowel), and it is not compatible
with number inflection (probably due to the fact that it is indefinite; see below).
Since nominal inflection attaches only to the last word (and there is no DP-
internal agreement), its scope seems to be the whole DP.21 We assume that this
inflection is the realization of the head of DP22 :
(29) Nominal inflection
DP
NP D
Definiteness
Number
Case
This D head may also contain a DP-final (noninflectional) determiner, as in (26b).
The distribution of definiteness and number in Basque is somewhat different
from more familiar Indo-European languages. Definite DPs include nominals that
are not interpreted as definite, such as certain indefinites and predicate nominals.
Strong quantifiers also generally trigger definiteness 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 inflection in Basque is that number
distinctions (singular vs. plural)23 are only made in definite forms, and they are
neutralized in indefinites, as shown in Tables 1.3 and 1.4.24 In this book, we gloss
nominal inflection as follows: definite forms are glossed indicating case and number
(27a), and indefinites by simply indicating case (27b).25
21 DPs headed by demonstratives are an exception. Unlike other dialects, demonstratives are DP-
initial in many Biscayan varieties, and carry nominal inflection matching the features also visible
on the last word in the DP (Hualde et al. 1994:97102).
22 It is clear from Tables 1.3 and 1.4 on p. 27 that inflectional endings in DPs can be split into two
positions: one encoding definiteness and number, followed by a case morpheme. The first position
is null in indefinite nonlocative cases and in definite singular locative cases, and the second position
is null in the definite singular (and possibly also plural) absolutive case. We abstract away from
this decomposition in this book.
23 There is also a distinction between proximate and nonproximate plurals, not included here. See
the references cited at the beginning of this subsection.

24 Indefinites do trigger singular or plural agreement and clitic-doubling in the finite verb,
depending on their semantic number.

25 Strong personal pronouns and names have somewhat special inflectional forms, in that they do
not seem to encode definiteness. We gloss these by simply indicating case. See Sect. 1.4.4 for clitic
pronouns.
1.4.3 The Syntax of Auxiliaries: T, C, and Agreement
In a Basque finite affirmative sentence, the main verb appears in a nonfinite form
(a participle) and is immediately followed by a finite auxiliary, traditionally referred
to as have in transitive sentences, and be in intransitives.26 This is illustrated in the
following sentences, repeated from (7):
(30) Word order in Basque
c. Liburu-a emo-n d -o -tz -t (>dotzat)
lagun-ari.
friend-DAT.SG
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 finite forms, and must therefore appear in analytic
participle-auxiliary complexes in finite sentences, as illustrated in most examples
so far. For instance, the main verb ikus-i see-PRF in (30b) has the perfective
aspect affix 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 configuration results in an aorist tense meaning:
(31) Su-k ni-0/ ikus-i
you(Sg)-ERG me-ABS see-PRF
n -indu -su -n. (>niddusun)
CL . A .1. SG - PST.1. SG - CL . E .2. SG - CPST
You(Sg) saw me. (Ondarru)
In complementary distribution with the perfective suffix, the main verb can also be
marked for imperfective aspect or for future. This results in six different indicative
analytic tenses, illustrated for the Ondarru verb ikusi in Table 1.5.
26 Certain particles can intervene between the participle and the auxiliary, which are otherwise
adjacent in affirmative sentences. See Sect. 5.7.3 in Chap. 5.

Table 1.5 Analytic tenses in Basque

Perfective Imperfective Future
Present Present perfect: Present habitual: Future:
ikus-i n-a-su ikus-ten n-a-su ikus-iko n-a-su
you have seen me you see me you will see me
Past Aorist: Past habitual: Conditional:
ikus-i n-indu-su-n ikus-ten n-indu-su-n ikus-iko n-indu-su-n
you saw me you used to see me you would see me
The Basque finite auxiliary contains tense/agreement, clitics, and other mor-
phemes. These morphemes surface in the following order27:
(32) Order of morphemes in Basque auxiliaries
absolutive clitic tense/agreement dative clitic ergative clitic
complementizer agreement complementizer
The auxiliaries in (30) 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 present or past
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 (Sect. 2.6 in Chap. 2).
The descriptive template in (32) incorporates one of the major claims about
Basque verbal syntax made in this book (see Halle and Marantz (1993) for similar
claims about other languages):
(33) Morphemes cross-referencing arguments in a Basque finite 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 finite verbs. For instance, the auxiliaries in (30a), (30b) and (31) crossreference
the first singular absolutive argument in the first two positions. In our analysis, this is
not a true case of multiple exponence: the first position is filled 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.
27 The first position is sometimes occupied by morphemes other than an absolutive clitic, including
the L-morpheme glossed L in (30c). The template in (32) abstracts away from the position
of the plural clitic exponent -e. Both phenomena are discussed at length in Chaps. 2 and 5.
Complementizer agreement appears to be unique to the Biscayan dialect.
Fig. 1.4 Basic syntax of CP

Basque sentences
TP C
AspP T
vP Asp
Subject VP v
Object V
Before we sketch our analysis of verbal morphology in Basque, we would like

to summarize the main differences between our analysis and previous ones, which,
as the reader familiar with the literature on this language will note, are fairly signif-
icant. There are four main differences. First, as noted above, all morphemes labeled
in (32) as clitics have often been analyzed as agreement morphemes.28 Chapters 2
(especially Sect. 2.5) and 3 provide several arguments that these morphemes are
indeed clitics. Second, our tense/agreement morpheme (the root of the auxiliary)
is often decomposed in the previous literature into several morphemes, including a
verbal root, absolutive number agreement, and another morpheme variously referred
to as tense or a theme vowel. Justification for our atomic analysis of the root is
given in Sect. 3.5 in Chap. 3. Third, the morpheme we analyze as complementizer
agreement, which is particular to Biscayan, is often claimed to be more closely
related to absolutive number agreement in the root, on the basis of comparison
with non-Biscayan dialects. We compare these two analyses of this morpheme in
Sect. 3.3.6 in Chap. 3. Finally, the auxiliary-final complementizer position in (32)
includes the past tense exponent -n, which in most generative accounts is analyzed
as the realization of T. We justify our claim that it is a complementizer (which is
nevertheless specified for tense features) in Sect. 2.6 in Chap. 2.
In our analysis, the verbal forms in finite sentences are derived as follows (Laka
1990:1825). As illustrated with the transitive structure in Fig. 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 suffix on the main verb. The auxiliary as schematized
in (32) is the result of several operations of agreement, Cliticization and Head
Movement targeting T, which are discussed below.
The second position in the auxiliary template in (32) 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 specified as present or past tense, which we encode in
28 This includesthe plural clitic exponent -e (not included in (32)), often analyzed as the realization
of plural agreement (see Sect. 3.3.6 in Chap. 3). A related difference has to do with decomposition
of our (atomic) dative clitics into a so-called dative flag and a dative clitic proper. See Sect. 3.3.3
in Chap. 3 for discussion.
terms of the feature [past]. In addition, it is a Probe that triggers Agree with
absolutive and dative arguments in the sentence.29 This agreement operation is
discussed at length in Sect. 2.4 in Chap. 2.
It should be clear from what we have said above that in Basque the mechanisms
responsible for case and agreement are independent of each other. Ergative and
dative cases are selected by v and Appl, respectively, and absolutive reflects the
absence of case in the syntax (Sect. 1.4.1). 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 Sect. 2.5 in Chap. 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 (Sect. 1.4.4), the resulting structure for all
auxiliaries is the following:
(34) The structure of finite auxiliaries
C
TAgr C
Agr C
Examples of overt C and complementizer agreement are shown in the following
examples:
(35) Overt complementizer
Pentza-ten d -o -t bidxar etorr-iko
think-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.1.SG tomorrow come-FUT
d -a -la.
L - PRS .3. SG - CDECL
I think he will come tomorrow. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:183)
(36) Complementizer agreement
Da gobernu-uk emo-ten
and government-ERG.SG give-IMP
d -o -tz -e -0/ -s berroei millo-0.
/
L - PRS .3. PL - CL . D .3 - CL . D . PL - CL . E .3. SG -3. PL forty million- ABS
And the government gives them forty million.
(Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:218)
29 In most cases, only absolutive agreement surfaces in T, but there are cases where dative
agreement is also visible. See Sect. 2.4.2 in Chap. 2 and Sect. 3.4.4 in Chap. 3.
C is always overt in embedded (finite) 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
Chap. 2 (Sects. 2.6 and 2.4.3).
A crucial claim made in this book is that the root of the auxiliary is the realization
of a T head specified for tense and agreement. Previous work has often analyzed it
as the realization of a lower head such as v.30 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 adjacent,
they clearly surface in separate parts of the structure in some contexts, such as matrix
negative sentences (Laka 1990:2551; Etxepare 2003a:518522):
(37) 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:
(38) Putative illegal movement in (37) if v is root 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 (HMC; Travis 1984), a well-established condition on this type of
movement.31 Under the analysis defended here, no issue of the HMC arises;
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 Appendix A 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 Chap. 2 is complemented by a detailed account of
the realization of T in Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio in Chap. 3. The fact that
30 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 first position in (32) is the realization of
agreement features in v or V (i.a. Fernndez and Albizu 2000; Rezac 2003; Rezac 2008b).
31 We uphold the Head Movement Constraint throughout our analysis of Basque auxiliary word
formation. Pronominal clitics, which originate in the specifier of functional heads and thus move
as phrases in their first step of cliticization (see Sect. 2.2.3 in Chap. 2), may subsequently undergo
local Head Movement from their landing site.
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 (32)). Although these are commonly
referred to as agreement morphemes (i.e. 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 (30), repeated here32 :
(39) Pronominal clitics in Basque
c. Liburu-a emo-n
book-ABS.SG give-PRF
d -o -tz -t (>dotzat) lagun-ari.
L - PRS .3. SG - CL. D.3. SG - CL. E.1. SG friend-DAT.SG
Auxiliary paradigms are traditionally classified according to the number and type
of pronominal clitics they contain.33 We use the same criterion to refer to different
auxiliary types in this book, but for ease of exposition, we use a different termi-
nology. Auxiliaries with an ergative clitic are referred to as transitive (39b)(39c),
and those without, as intransitive (39a). Among the former, we also distinguish
between ditransitives (39c), which have a dative clitic, and monotransitives (39b),
which do not. We also occasionally refer to intransitive auxiliaries with a dative clitic
as applicative intransitives (e.g. (22)) to distinguish them from plain intransitives.
Although this is very convenient morphological terminology, the reader should be
32 The form of these morphemes resembles that of (nonclitic) pronouns. This justifies 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.
33 The traditional names for the different types of auxiliary are based on the wh-word nor who
inflected for the different cases: NOR (absolutive), NOR-NORI (absolutive-dative), NOR-NORK
(absolutive-ergative), NOR-NORI-NORK (absolutive-dative-ergative).
aware that it does not necessarily correlate with syntactic properties of auxiliaries.
For instance, a sentence with Absolutive Promotion (Sect. 2.3.2 in Chap. 2) has the
basic syntax of an applicative intransitive sentence, but its internal (theme) argument
has 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 (Sect. 2.5 in
Chap. 2): they are intransitive, but the subject has ergative case. Thus, the auxiliary
in these sentences counts as morphologically transitive. Finally, DOM (Sect. 1.4.1)
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 are offered in Chaps. 23. With respect to their syntax, the
hypothesis affords an extremely straightforward account of Person-Case Constraint
(PCC) effects in this language, and of its dialect-particular repair Absolutive
Promotion (Sect. 2.3 in Chap. 2). The claim is also a crucial part of our account of
(apparent) multiple exponence in Basque auxiliaries (Chap. 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 terminal can only correspond
to a single exponent. For instance, the first singular absolutive argument in (39a)
and (39b) is crossreferenced in two separate positions in the auxiliary (the first
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 such apparent cases are accounted for in terms
of features hosted in separate morphemes. In Chap. 3, we compare this proposal for
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
finite clauses: omission of any clitic in (39) results in ungrammaticality. We analyze
cliticization in Chap. 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 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 (Chap. 2), Fission of the plural clitic exponent
-e (Chap. 3), and Ergative Metathesis (Chap. 5). In sentences with third person
absolutive arguments, such as (30c), the position typically filled by absolutive clitics
is filled by other morphemes, such as the L-morpheme or metathesized clitics
(Chap. 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 the 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 (39b):
(40) The structure of finite auxiliaries with pronominal clitics
C
T C
ClAbs T ClErg C
n a su
Agr C
This structure illustrates our analysis 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 (Chap. 4) and Ergative Metathesis (Chap. 5), both
of which play an important role in the evidence presented in Chap. 6 for a 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: finite 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 briefly discusses some of these
issues.
1.4.5.1 Finite Main Verbs
As shown above, most Basque verbs lack finite forms and must appear in conjunc-
tion with a tensed auxiliary in finite sentences. There are, however, a very reduced
number of verbs that can also appear in synthetic finite tenses. In this case, the
morphemes that are otherwise part of a finite auxiliary are attached to the root of
main verb:
(41) Finite main verbs
a. Kantzeu-te g -a -u -s.
tire-NF CL. A .1. PL - PRS .1. PL -be -1. PL
Were tired. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:406)
b. Ni-k diro asko-0/
I-ERG money much-ABS
n -e -ku -n. (>nekuan)
CL. E.1. SG - PST.3. SG -have - CPST
I had a lot of money. (Ondarru)
Note that these verbs can also appear in all analytic 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 the finite forms of main verbs are clearly related to the syntax and
morphology of finite 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 terms of their derivation:
(42) The structure of finite gaus in (41a)
C
T C
T v Agr C
u s
ClAbs T
g a
There are several reasons for this gap in our analysis. First, only a very reduced
number of lexical verbs have finite forms. For instance, Hualde et al. (1994:121
123, 132134) only lists ten for Lekeitio, and only five of them have past tense
forms.34 Furthermore, the paradigms are greatly leveled; for instance, none of the
transitive verbs have forms with (nonthird person) absolutive clitics.35 It is thus
hard to draw solid conclusions from finite forms of lexical verbs, which justifies
their exclusion from the analysis. It should nevetheless be noted that, as illustrated
in (41), their morphology is very similar to auxiliaries, and are subject to similar
postsyntactic operations discussed in this book, such as Ergative Metathesis in (41b)
(Chap. 5). Thus, extending our account to these forms would not seem to pose any
insurmountable problems.
It should also be noted that the finite forms of the verb ixan be (ixen in Zamudio,
izan in Batua) are identical to the nonapplicative intransitive auxiliary (Table A.1 in
34 The verbs with finite 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 five have past tense forms. The list in Ondarru
is very similar, with two differences: ekarri bring has no finite 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).
35 The only exception we are aware of is the finite verb in the following idiom (cf. Spanish Me
tienes hasta los cojones):
(i) Potru-k arte n -a -k -su. (>nakasu)

testicle-ABS. PL up.to CL. A .1. SG -PRS.1. SG -have -CL. E.2. SG
Im fed up with you. (Ondarru)
Appendix A). In non-Biscayan varieties, monotransitive auxiliary forms (Tables A.3

and A.6 in Appendix A) can also be used as lexical possessive verbs meaning have.
The following examples illustrate both verbs36:
(43) Finite main verbs
a. Lagun on-ak g -ina -/0/ -n. (>gian)
friend good-ABS.SG CL.1.A.PL -PST.1.PL -be -CPST
We were good friends. (Ondarru)
b. Ni-k diru asko-0/
I-ERG money much.ABS
n -u -/0/ -n. (>nuen)
CL. E.1. SG - PST.3. SG -have - CPST
I had a lot of money. (Batua)
Ondarru gian in (43a) is phonologically identical to the past tense (nonapplicative)
intransitive auxiliary with a first plural clitic (Table A.1 in Appendix A), and
Batua nuen in (43b) is phonologically identical to the past tense monotransitive
auxiliary crossreferencing a first singular ergative and a third singular absolutive
(neban/neuen in Biscayan; see Table A.6 in Appendix A).
This surface identity is the reason why the indicative intransitive and transitive
auxiliary forms are traditionally referred to as be and have, respectively. Given our
claim that the root of the auxiliary is T, total identity between auxiliary verbs and
main verbs have and be is not possible, as is probably the case as well with their
analogues in English. The difference between auxiliaries and main verbs have/be
is even more salient in Basque, where, for instance, the former, but not the latter,
are impossible in nonfinite sentences. The surface coincidence between auxiliaries
and the finite forms of these main verbs is compatible with our analysis under the
assumption that the latter involve an additional verbal head that is null in finite
contexts and, like other main verbs in finite forms, moves to T:
(44) The structure of finite gian in (43a)
C
T C
T v Agr C
0/ n
ClAbs T
g ina
36 Note that these are different from the verbs have and be in (41). Possessive euki (whose root is
-ku/uk- in Ondarru) is in common use in Biscayan, where monotransitive auxiliary forms do not
have main verb uses. The copula e(g)on (whose root is -o/u- in Ondarru) alternates with ixan in a
way similar to Spanish estar and ser.
We thus treat this coincidence as an accident in the synchronic grammar of

Basque, which of course does not rule out an explanation in terms of a diachronic
process of grammaticalization, much like what might be said for English, which
shows syntactic differences (e.g. the availability of subject-auxiliary inversion) and
semantic differences between the auxiliary and main verb uses of have/be.
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.37 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, along with allomorphy in
C, and do not seem to involve any complication in the analysis beyond that. In
other cases, the paradigms are greatly leveled, as is the case in the potential and
subjunctive moods.38 This is especially true in the monotransitive paradigm, which
in nonindicative moods lacks forms with (first and second person) absolutive 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 specific 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 dis-
tinguishes not only between singular and plural, but also between formal and
colloquial, and in the latter case, between masculine and feminine (this being the
only place where grammatical gender is encoded in Basque grammar). For instance,
the second singular ergative clitic in Batua (the standard dialect) is -zu in formal
treatment (which is gender-neutral), while it is -k/a (masculine) and -n(a) (feminine)
37 Conditional forms are used in counterfactual conditionals, and indicative conditionals are based
on indicative forms of auxiliaries. Potential finite 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).
38 In fact, subjunctive forms are barely used in Lekeitio and Ondarru (Hualde et al. 1994:120),
where instead the use of nonfinite clauses in subjunctive contexts is very common.
in colloquial treatment. These distinctions are neutralized in the plural. For example,
the Batua second plural ergative clitic is -zu-e, regardless of the colloquial/formal
distinction and gender (Sect. 4.3.1 in Chap. 4). 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 con-
jugation of finite verbs (Oyharabal 1993; Alberdi 1995; Hualde 2003b:242246).
In Basque dialects that have a formal-colloquial distinction in the second singular,
auxiliaries have an additional (and obligatory) second person clitic when addressing
a speaker with whom they use colloquial forms of the second person. This clitic
is called allocutive because its only function is to signal familiarity with the
addressee.39 It does not cross-reference any argument in the sentence, and does
not alter the (truth-conditional) semantics of the sentence in any way. Due to the
neutralization of the formal/colloquial distinction, allocutive forms are no longer
used in the three varieties studied here.40
Given 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 phenomena from our
account of the morphology of auxiliaries, but we include some relevant discussion
at several points, including Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 2, Sect. 3.4.1 in Chap. 3, Sect. 4.6.3
in Chap. 4, and Sects. 5.5 and 5.6.3 in Chap. 5.
1.4.5.4 Binding-Theoretic Considerations
All descriptions of Basque finite verbs contain a paradigm gap: clitic combinations
of first with first person and of second with second person are ruled out. For ease
of reference, we refer to such gaps as 1/1 and 2/2 combinations. This can be
clearly seen in the tables in Appendix A, where all cells corresponding to such
combinations are empty, regardless of case and number. The following are some
illustrative sentences:
39 In some eastern dialects of Basque, allocutive clitics are also used with singular formal
addressees (Oyharabal 1993).
40 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.

(45) 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. (Ondarru)
b. *Matxe s -aitu -su. (>satxusu)
love CL.A.2.SG -PRS.2.SG -CL.E.2.SG
You(Sg) love you(Sg)/yourself. (Ondarru)
We follow Oyharabal (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 first with first and
second with second.
The basic idea behind this Binding Theoretic explanation of the paradigm gap is
that reflexive and reciprocal relations (henceforth BT-anaphoric relations) in Basque
do not give rise to argument combinations of first with first or second with second.41
Two main strategies exist in Basque to express BT-anaphoric relations: (1) the use
of a third person BT-anaphor (regardless of the person of the antecedent), and (2)
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 (46) or cliticization (47):
(46) Third person reflexives: 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)
(47) 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. (Ondarru)
The third person agreement and cliticization in these examples is not specific to
BT-anaphoric relations. In fact, (46) has an additional literal meaning that is not
reflexive: Ive hit my head. Under that reading, the agreement exponent -o- remains
the same. Thus, this BT-anaphoric strategy does not yield argument combinations of
first with first or second with second, which explains in part the restriction against
1/1 and 2/2 combinations in finite verbs.
Detransitivization is a possible strategy when the BT-anaphoric relation is
between an ergative subject and an absolutive object. The following are relevant
examples with participant antecedents:
41 See Artiagoitia (2003c) for reflexives and reciprocals in Basque, and Hualde et al.
(1994:176182) for Lekeitio.
(48) Reflexive detransitivization

Ondo sain-ddu n -as.
well take.care-PRF CL.A.1.SG -PRS.1.SG
Ive taken good care of myself. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:180)
(49) 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 does not result in argument combinations
of first with first 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 first with first or second
with second. Thus, it is natural to assume that 1/1 and 2/2 combinations in finite
verbs result in Condition B violations: the object clitic in (45) (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 nonfinite clauses:
(50) 1/1 combinations in nonfinite 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
[ I-ERG my-GEN head-ABS.SG love be-NF ] want
d -au -0.
/
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . E .3. SG
He wants me to love myself. (Ondarru)
As expected, a reflexive relation in a nonfinite clause requires the use of a reflexive
pronoun; a nonreflexive pronoun in object position is ungrammatical. Thus, the
imposibility of auxiliaries with 1/1 and 2/2 combinations in finite clauses is
reducible to the Binding Theory.
However, there are certain types of sentences in which argument combinations
of first with first and second with second might not be expected to give rise
to Condition B violations. As discussed immediately below, Basque requires
reflexivization strategies even in these contexts, which makes an explanation of the
paradigm gaps in terms of Condition B plausible.
The first 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, nonreflexive pronouns are possible in English:
(51) 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 English, in apparent
violation of Condition B. However, the same is not true in Basque: a reflexive
strategy (i.e. a reflexive pronoun (52a) or detransitivization (52b)) is required even
for coreference in this type of context:
(52) Context: Nobody loves Jon: Mikel doesnt love Jon, Miren doesnt love him,
and
a. Jon-ek be es d -au -0/ ber-an buru-0/
Jon-ERG even not L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.3.SG his-GEN.SG head-ABS.SG
matxe.
love
Even Jon doesnt love himself. (Ondarru)
b. Jon-0/ be es d -a matxe.
Jon-ABS even not L -PRS.3.SG love
Even Jon doesnt love himself. (Ondarru)
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. (Ondarru)
The same pattern obtains in argument combinations of first with first and second
with second:
(53) 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 head-ABS.SG love
Even I dont love myself. (Ondarru)
b. Neu-0/ be es n -as 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)
/
I-ERG even not CL.A.1.SG -PRS.1.SG -CL.E.1.SG (me-ABS.SG)
matxe.
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 reflexive 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 Binding Theoretic explanation

to be unavailable has to do with combinations of arguments with different number.
Object nonreflexive pronouns are possible in English and other languages in at least
some of these combinations (i.a. Lasnik 1981; Rooryck 2006):
(54) I saved us from certain death. (Rooryck 2006:1562)
However, nonreflexive pronouns (including pro) are ruled out in Basque even in
these contexts. Surprisingly, a reflexive pronoun is needed in this type of sentence
(Artiagoitia 2003c:623624)42:
(55) a. Ni-k geu-re buru-0/ ikus-i d -o -t (>rot)
I-ERG our-GEN head-ABS.SG see-PRF L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.1.SG
ispillu-n.
mirror-IN.SG
Ive seen us in the mirror. (Ondarru)
b. *Ni-k (geu-0) / ikus-i g -aitu -t (>gatxut)
I-ERG (us-ABS) see-PRF CL.1.PL -PRS.1.PL -CL.E.1.SG
ispillu-n.
mirror-IN.SG
Ive seen us in the mirror. (Ondarru)
As in previous cases, the use of a reflexivization 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 pointed out by Xabier Artiagoitia (personal
communication), there might be an additional restriction on these combinations in
auxiliaries. Although nonfinite sentences that violate Condition B are ungrammat-
ical (e.g. (50a)), equivalent finite sentences with the offending clitic combinations
seem worse (e.g (45)). This suggests that the latter violate a restriction that is specific
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 finite verbs. The primary phenomena that interact are syntactic cliticization,
42 Compare English *I saw ourselves in the mirror. Detransitivization is not a possible strategy in
this type of example in Basque.
1.5 Overview of the Book 45
pre-Linearization Impoverishment and Obliteration operations, word-internal Lin-

earization, post-Linearization morpheme Metathesis operations, and allomorphy
during Vocabulary Insertion. These phenomena are exemplified 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 nonfinite verbs, since these do not show
any of the phenomena that motivate this study. Our primary focus is on what the
interaction of Basque morphotactics reveal about the architecture of the inflectional
word formation components of natural language.
Chapter 2 is devoted to the syntactic operations that generate the Basque
auxiliary word and other finite verbs. We present a clause structure for Basque
finite 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 syntax for clitics in terms of a big-DP
structure, according to which they originate within the base structure of the syntactic
argument to which they correspond. The mechanism of Agree is exemplified for the
feature-valuation relationship between T(ense) and absolutive and dative arguments,
implemented in terms of syntactic establishment of the relation (Agree-Link), and
postsyntactic implementation of feature-value copying from Goal to Probe (Agree-
Copy). 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 finding 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 Fission, vocabulary entries for the auxiliary root, and phonological rules
affecting the underlying form of auxiliaries. The chapter presents novel revisions
to the mechanisms of Fission 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 chapter 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 developing 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 feature deletion 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 exemplification of Participant Dissimilation, a
process of morphological dissimilation based on multiple instances of the feature
[+participant] in the same M-word. We argue for a general constraint, found across
many Biscayan dialects, that bans the cooccurrence of first plural clitics and second
person clitics within the same finite verb, but observe that each dialect may impose
additional subcondition and enacts separate repairs in terms of deletion operations
of Participant Dissimilation. We exemplify the distinction between Impoverishment
and Obliteration through an examination of their effects on the allomorph selection
between transitive and intransitive auxiliary roots. 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 finite verb. We motivate a word-internal second position
effect, reminiscent of the second position and Wackernagel effects found in clausal
syntax, and argue that the auxiliary root in Basque must have a terminal node
to its left once Linearization has been imposed. Ordinarily, Linearization of the
absolutive clitic to the left of the auxiliary root fulfills this requirement; however,
when this fails to occur, other operations must furnish an element in this position.
Ergative 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 Ergative Metathesis in terms of Harris and
Halles (2005) Generalized Reduplication formalism, and discuss its role in linear
reordering. We also show that this Noninitiality requirement is satisfied in a number
of ways subject to dialectal variation, including Ergative Doubling (an alternative
to Metathesis predicted by the Generalized Reduplication formalism), Metathesis
(and Doubling) of clitics other than the ergative, and a default epenthetic process of
L-Support, which provides an expletive clitic that serves to satisfy the Noninitiality
requirement on the root when no displacement operation is available. The chapter
contains further illustration of these analytical tools in our account of the placement
of plural clitics in Basque auxiliaries.
Chapter 6 investigates the interaction of the processes documented in Chaps. 2 5
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 postsyntactic operations to the prelinearization or
postlinearization block is based on the inherent nature of their structural description.
Through a variety of opaque and seeming Duke-of-York interactions, we demon-
strate 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
1.5 Overview of the Book 47
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.
We conclude in Chap. 7 with a discussion of directions for further research. These
include a general recap of some of the crucial postsyntactic 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 Fission, Complementizer Agreement, and allomorphy of the auxiliary
root itself, three phenomena which inhabit demonstrably distinct points along the
Spellout path. The chapter includes a broad summary of the nature of Crossmodular
Structural Parallelism as it is found throughout the overall organization and specific
nature of postsyntactic operations developed throughout the analyses in preceding
chapters. Finally, the book closes with a discussion of how a methodological cycle
between broad dialect comparison and in-depth complete empirical coverage of
individual dialects is crucial to the discovery of new generalizations and the further
understanding of particular issues that we identify as ripe for future investigation.
Chapter 2
The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement
It has been seen to that trees do not grow up to the sky.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
2.1 Introduction
The -features of ergative, absolutive, and dative arguments interact in various ways
in the clitic and agreement system of the Basque finite auxiliary. In this chapter,
we provide an analysis of the syntax of agreement and cliticization in Basque,
and introduce certain postsyntactic processes that are intimately related to these
operations.
Basque finite auxiliaries have the following template1 :
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 Chap. 1
and discussed further throughout the present chapter. These operations, which
include Cliticization, Agree, and Head Movement, result in the following internal
structure of auxiliaries:
1 There is a well-defined class of exceptions to this template. In certain environments, the first
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 Sects. 5.4
and 5.6 in Chap. 5. In addition, in PCC contexts in Ondarru, the ergative clitic position may be
filled by a clitic that is generated in absolutive position, as discussed in Sect. 2.3.2. Finally, a plural
exponent -e is split off from certain clitics, as discussed in Chaps. 3 and 5.

50 2 The Syntax of Cliticization and Agreement
(2) The structure of Basque auxiliaries

C
T C
(ClAbs/Dat ) TAgr (ClErg ) 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 is the claim that, contrary to the dominant viewpoint in
the literature, certain morphemes attached to the auxiliary that are often identified 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 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 finite 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 finite 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 finite
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 accounts for the particular distribution of agreement in Basque: although T
agrees with both absolutive and dative arguments, dative agreement only surfaces
in very specific 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 finite auxiliaries that
are examined throughout this book. Second, our analysis of Cliticization in Basque
provides an insightful account of Person-Case Constraint (PCC) effects in this
language and their repairs. Among these repairs, we concentrate on Absolutive
2.2 Clitic Placement 51
Promotion in the variety of Ondarru, whose relevance for the general theory of
morphology defended in this book is further highlighted in Chap. 6.
Several operations are involved in generating the auxiliary structure in (2), and
the present chapter is organized around these operations. We begin in Sects. 2.2
and 2.3 with the syntax of pronominal clitics, including accounts of the absence
of third person absolutive clitics in Basque, Person-Case Constraint effects, and
Absolutive Promotion. We propose that pronominal clitics are generated so as to
form a constituent with their associated arguments, and undergo cliticization to
their hosts, T and C. Both hosts also display agreement with certain arguments,
which is the topic of Sect. 2.4. 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 propose
is the result of a separate postsyntactic operation that copies -features from T to
an agreement morpheme adjoined to C. Section 2.5 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 Sect. 2.6 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 Agree and Cliticization.
The chapter ends with a general summary and conclusions in Sect. 2.7.
2.2 Clitic Placement
One of our central hypotheses is that some of the morphemes often referred to as
agreement in Basque finite auxiliaries are in fact pronominal clitics. Specifically, we
propose that the following template for finite auxiliaries is descriptively adequate:
Abs clitic Tense/Agreement Dat clitic Erg clitic
Comp agreement Comp
With the exception of agreement in T and complementizer agreement, all other
morphemes cross-referencing 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 cross-linguistically characterized by being
tense-invariant. This aspect of the analysis is discussed in detail in Chap. 3. In this
section, we discuss the syntax of cliticization in Basque.
Our analysis of pronominal cliticization in Basque has two components. In

Sect. 2.2.1, 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 finite auxiliaries. The second part of the analysis is discussed in Sect. 2.2.2,
where we propose that clitics move to T and C in finite clauses. Clitic movement,
together with agreement (Sect. 2.4) and T-to-C movement (Sect. 2.6), 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 finite clauses.
Consider, for instance, the following transitive 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(Sg) 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 first 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 find 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 finite
clauses. Being a pro-drop language for ergative, absolutive and dative arguments
(Sect. 1.4.1 in Chap. 1), Basque allows both arguments in this example to be null.
However, the clitics must be present on the finite 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, omission 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 finite clauses.
Obligatory clitic doubling is found in many languages. For instance, it is
obligatory with strong object pronouns in Spanish (Jaeggli 1982:Chap. 1; Suer
1988) and with subjects in some Northern Italian languages (Poletto 2000:140143):
(6) Juan *(la) vio a ella.

Juan *(CL.ACC) saw to her
Juan saw her. (Spanish)
(7) Gnun a m capiss.
nobody CL.SBJ me understands
Nobody understands me. (Turin, Piedmontese, Poletto 2000:142)
The phenomenon is also illustrated by subjects in Rhaeto-Romance (Haiman and
Beninc 1992:179181), and the quantifier 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; Franks and Rudin 2005; van Craenenbroeck and van Koppen 2008).2
Clitics are elements of category D generated in the specifier position of certain
functional layers that dominate argumental DPs, namely KP (a head dedicated to
syntactic case; see Bittner and Hale 1996; Neeleman and Szendroi 2007 among
others) and PartP (a layer of structure in [+participant] pronouns; see Dchaine and
Wiltschko 2002), as shown in the structure below3 :
(8) The structure of big-DPs
KP
(DCl ) K
PartP K
(DCl ) Part
DPArg Part
The clitic is generated in the specifier 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 arguments4:
(9) a. Syntactic case features are generated in the head K.
b. The person feature [+participant] is generated in the head Part.
Since only ergative and dative are syntactic, only arguments with these cases
have KP (absolutive case is a postsyntactic default; see Sect. 1.4.1 in Chap. 1).
2 See Sect. 2.2.3 for discussion of alternative analyses of Cliticization.

3 For clarity, we often represent clitics as DCl , or simply Cl.
4 Although certain case and person features are generated in positions higher than D, as shown in
Sect. 1.4.2 in Chap. 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.
Furthermore, only first and second person arguments have PartP; third person
arguments are [participant] and therefore lack this projection.
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 specifier positions made available by the functional projections KP
and PartP. Should a pronominal argument generate both PartP and KP, we propose
that the clitic is generated in the specifier of the former, and subsequently moves up
to the specifier of the latter.
Consider first participant (first/second person) arguments in ergative or dative
case position:
(10) Participant arguments with ergative or dative case
KP
DCl K
PartP K

peripheral
t Part +motion
DPArg Part

author [+participant]
singular
We assume that case is selected for by functional heads. Specifically, v selects
for a KP with ergative case in its specifier, and Appl selects for a KP with dative
case in its specifier (see Sect. 1.4.1 in Chap. 1 for our assumptions about case in
Basque).5 Given (9a), K hosts 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.6 The clitic DCl is generated in the specifier of the lower functional
projection PartP and moves to the specifier of KP.
5 Similar proposals are found in Gair and Wali 1989; den Dikken 1995:Chap. 3; Rezac 2008b.
6 This 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.
Given (9), not all arguments are generated with both KP and PartP. Since
absolutive case is not present in the syntax, absolutive case-marked arguments are
not generated in positions selected as KP, and therefore are merged without KP:
(11) Participant arguments with absolutive case
PartP
DCl Part
DPArg Part

author [+participant]
singular
In this case, the clitic is generated in PartP, since KP is not available. As discussed
in Sect. 1.4.1 in Chap. 1, absolutive is a default case not related to any particular
functional head. Absolutive arguments remain caseless in the syntax, and the
missing case features under the argument DP shown in (11) will be provided as
default [peripheral,motion] in the Postsyntactic component.
On the other hand, third person arguments with dative or ergative case have KP,
but not PartP:
(12) Nonparticipant arguments with dative or ergative case
KP
DCl K
DPArg K

participant peripheral
author +motion
singular
K hosts case features, and all -features are in the argument DP. The clitic is
generated in the specifier of KP.
Finally, third person absolutive arguments have neither KP nor 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 specifier of KP or PartP, this predicts that third person
absolutives pattern differently with respect to cliticization:
(13) Basque has no third person absolutive clitics.7
7 Wiltschko (2008) makes a claim similar to (13) for Salish.

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 specifications. Third person absolutive arguments lack these features, and
are therefore generated without a clitic.
As shown in (3) above, the first position in Basque auxiliaries is typically filled
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)):
(14) 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)
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.8
In the examples above, it is spelled out as d, but as shown in Sect. 5.4.3 in Chap. 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 Sect. 5.4 in Chap. 5). Since the initial position in
auxiliaries 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 conse-
quently, that Basque lacks third person absolutive clitics, form an essential element
in our account of several morphological phenomena in Basque, including the PCC
(Sect. 2.3.1; see also Rezac 2008c), the behavior of the plural clitic -e (Sect. 3.3.5 in
Chap. 3) and Ergative Metathesis (Sect. 5.4 in Chap. 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 as

a constituent with the doubled argument. They must furthermore be licensed by
moving to certain functional heads that are only available in finite clauses:
8 The claim was first made in Oregi Aranburu (1974), and independently in Trask (1977).
(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 specified for finiteness: [+fin] in finite clauses, and
[fin] in nonfinite 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 finite auxiliary verb. In this subsection, we provide an account of both of these
movement operations.
As mentioned above, cliticization is obligatory in finite clauses. Note, however,
that nonfinite 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(Sg) to see me. (Ondarru)
We assume that clitics are generated when possible. Since they must be licensed by
finite T or C, arguments are not generated with clitics in nonfinite clauses. We follow
van Craenenbroeck and van Koppens (2008) proposal, developed for Wambeek
Dutch, that clitics may be specified for a finiteness feature that must be checked by
Rizzis (1997) Fin head. For Basque, we propose that cliticization is movement of
the clitic to a [+fin]-bearing head (either T or C) in order to satisfy this feature-
checking requirement. 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. (Spanish)
(19) *li {loi /lei } fue a Madrid.
hei {CL.ACCi /CL.DATi } went to Madrid
He went to Madrid. (Spanish)
(20) *Juan {lai /lei } pensaba en ellai .
Juan {CL.ACCi /CL.DATi } thought in heri
Juan was thinking about her. (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 specifier 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
Fig. 2.1 The syntax of clitics CP
TP C
ClErg C
vP T
ClAbs T
KP
VP v
tClErg
PartP K PartP V
DP Part tClAbs DP Part
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 finite clauses in Basque, the auxiliary in monotran-
sitive (4), repeated below, is derived by moving the absolutive clitic to T and the
ergative to C, as shown in Fig. 2.1 (see Sect. 1.4.1 in Chap. 1 for our assumptions
about clause structure and case in Basque).
(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(Sg) have seen me (Ondarru)
We assume that cliticization is a particular kind of head movement with certain
properties. As illustrated in Fig. 2.1, it typically skips intervening heads: v, Asp
(omitted in Fig. 2.1 and throughout this chapter) and T (see Sect. 2.2.3 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 clitic movement: the absolutive clitic in Fig. 2.1 skips the c-commanding
ergative clitic on its way to T (since the specifier 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:
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 definition of the Phase Impenetrability Condition in Chomsky (2001) in which elements
in a strong phase remain accessible until the next phase head up, which T is not.
(22) Transitive cliticization

C
T C
ClAbs T ClErg C
The result is a single morphological word headed by C.10

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
C11 :
(23) Su-0/ Bilbo-a ju-n s -as.
you.SG-ABS Bilbao-ALL go-PRF CL.A.2.SG -PRS.2.SG
You have gone to Bilbao. (Ondarru)
(24) Intransitive cliticization
C
T C
ClAbs T
A further case is exemplified by indirectly transitive 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
Jon-ERG Miren-DAT look-PRF
d -o -tz -0.
/ (>tza)
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . D .3. SG - CL . E .3. SG
Jon has looked at Miren. (Ondarru)
(26) Cliticization in indirectly transitive clauses
C
T C
ClDat T ClErg C
10 In the structure in (22), the complex T node asymmetrically c-commands the ergative clitic
adjoined to C, thereby mirroring the fact that it also asymmetrically c-commands the ergative clitic
in the base structure (where the ergative clitic is within the specifier of v). The generalization that
the higher of two elements A and B, both of which move to the same head H, maintains asymmetric
c-command in both the base and moved positions, is guaranteed both by the tucking-in derivation
of Richards (2001) and the prominence-based ordering of movements of Roberts (2010:59ff).
11 See Sect. 2.5 for unergative sentences.
The syntax of this type of sentence is very similar to a transitive one (see Fig. 2.1),
except for the fact that V selects for lexical dative case on its complement.12 This
argument is doubled by a dative clitic that moves to T. Thus, the output of T-to-C
movement is (26).
Since structures generated by the syntactic component are not linearized (see
Chap. 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 Chap. 5. At this point in the discussion, the following
Linearization rules are sufficient (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 apply disjunctively, and thus their
order of application is governed by the Elsewhere Condition (Kiparsky 1973). Since
(27a) applies in the case where one of the daughters is a dative clitic, it is more
specific than the general rule in (27b), and therefore applies first if its structural
description is met. (27b) applies in all other cases.13
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 outputs for (22) and (24) that are consistent with these requirements are the
following:14
(28) Linearization of clitics on transitive auxiliaries
ClAbs T ClErg C
(29) Linearization of clitics on intransitive auxiliaries
ClAbs T C
12 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 (Sect. 2.2.1).
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 principles or
independent phenomena.
14 The linearized structures in this section and in Sect. 2.3 do not include Complementizer
Agreement (see Sect. 2.4.3). This detail does not alter the predictions of the analysis discussed
here.
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.15
On the other hand, dative clitics trigger application of the more specific (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 attested morpheme order, with both the dative and ergative clitics
surfacing to the right of T (in that order). Dative clitics are also present in sentences
with an Appl head that selects a dative specifier. They give rise to PCC effects, and
their derivation is discussed in detail in Sect. 2.3.1.
The syntax of cliticization in sentences with third person absolutive arguments is
slightly different, since as shown in Sect. 2.2.1, 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)
The auxiliaries in these sentences do not have a clitic adjoined to T. Their structures
after T-to-C movement are the following:
(33) Result of Head Movement without absolutive clitic

C C
T C T 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 auxiliaries contain an additional

L-morpheme preceding T (Sect. 5.4.3 in Chap. 5).
15 Note that we use proclitic and enclitic as purely postlinearization terms: the absolutive clitic
precedes the root (T), so it qualifies 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.
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 briefly 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 conflicting properties that defy expla-
nation 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 move-
ment 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,
clitic movement skips intervening head positions (see also Kayne 1991), 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 conflicting properties. Another approach that attempts
to account for them originates in Sportiche (1996), in which clitics are functional
heads in the structure of the clause that attract arguments to their specifier positions
(henceforth, the Functional Head Approach).17 In both approaches, 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 Functional Head Approach). In the Functional Head
Approach, clitics are generated as heads in the functional layer of the sentence,
which accounts for their properties similar to Head Movement (which, as noted
16 This brief review concentrates on what can be considered morphosyntactic properties of
pronominal clitics. Clitic doubling has several semantic properties related to specificity and
animacy that interact in different ways across 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 finite clauses (with the exception of third
person absolutive).
17 There are also mixed approaches that involve a big-DP analysis for some clitics and an Functional
Head Approach to others. See Anagnostopoulou (2006:Sect. 4).

above, are limited to properties of the surface position of clitics). The doubled
argument (covertly) moves to the specifier of the clitic head, thereby accounting
for the phrasal movement properties of Cliticization. In the big-DP approach, the
clitic undergoes movement to a 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 specific implementation).
In this book, we adopt a big-DP analysis with the specific 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 Sect. 2.3 below. In particular, the proposal that the same functional head can
play host to different clitics establishes a competition for movement to this head,
resulting in PCC effects, and it also imposes conditions on possible PCC repairs.
In the Functional 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 further step moving the clitics from these inflectional heads to
their surface hosts.
In addition, due to our concentration on the morphosyntactic properties of clitics,
we have glossed over a possible initial step involving phrasal movement, which,
as noted above, has been used in the big-DP literature to account for the phrasal
movement properties of Cliticization. Given our particular version of the big-DP
analysis, this first step could be implemented as follows. Unlike other big-DP
analyses, the clitic in our account is an X0 generated in the specifier position of
certain functional heads in arguments. Thus, it can undergo movement either as a
head or as a phrase. The first step for cliticization can then be phrasal movement
of the clitic itself to the specifier 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 we leave it for
future research.
Although the brief comments above provide a rationale for adopting our partic-
ular 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 commits us to certain analytic choices among the ones
available, while leaving 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 a cogent analysis 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 rest of this
book.
2.3 The Person-Case Constraint and Absolutive Promotion
Our analysis of Cliticization developed in the previous section provides the nec-
essary 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 Sect. 2.3.1. Section 2.3.2 provides an analysis of
Absolutive Promotion (available only in Ondarru among the three varieties studied
here), a PCC repair operation whose properties have been studied in some detail
in the literature. Absolutive Promotion also figures prominently in Chap. 6: its
interactions with other operations on auxiliaries discussed in this book provide
substantial evidence for the modular architecture of the grammar proposed here.
Section 2.3.3 discusses the syntax of movement predicates that have dative goals
in Basque, the behavior of which with respect to PCC effects and Absolutive
Promotion is different from other predicate types with dative arguments analyzed
here. PCC repair operations other than Absolutive Promotion, which are not as well
understood, are discussed briefly in Sect. 2.3.4.
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:Chap. 4; Anagnostopoulou 2003:Chap. 5; Bjar and Rezac 2003; Adger and
Harbour 2007; Nevins 2007; Baker 2008:94103). While the general cover term is
used for many configurations that may look superficially similar, the PCC may differ
crosslinguistically in its details; for example, in certain languages it affects only
plural clitics (Nevins and Savescu 2010), and in addition it may vary as to whether it
affects combinations of indirect object and direct object only, or may involve subject
markers as well (Nevins 2011b). In Basque, it is instantiated by banning first 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; Lafitte
1944:294; Laka 1993a:2728; Albizu 1997; Ormazabal and Romero 1998, 2001,
2007; Ormazabal 2000; Rezac 2008c; Oyharabal and Etxepare 2009). This can be
seen in the following examples:
(35) Eur-ak su-ri Jon-0/ presenta-0/
they-ERG.PL you(Sg)-DAT Jon-ABS introduce-PRF
2.3 The Person-Case Constraint and Absolutive Promotion 65
d -o -tzu -0/ -e. (>tzue)

L - PRS .3. SG - CL . D .2. SG - CL . E .3 - CL . E . PL
They introduced Jon to you(Sg). (Ondarru)
(36) *Eur-ak su-ri neu-0/ presenta-0/
they-ERG.PL you(Sg)-DAT me-ABS introduce-PRF
n -a -tzu -0/ -e.
CL . A .1. SG - PRS .1. SG - CL . D .2. SG - CL . E .3 - CL . E . PL
They introduced me to you(Sg). (Ondarru)
(37) *Eur-ak ber-ai seu-ek presenta-0/
they-ERG.PL he-DAT.SG you-ABS.PL introduce-PRF
s -o -e -tz -0/ -e. (>soetze)
CL . A .2 - PRS .2. PL - CL . A . PL - CL . D .3. SG - CL . E .3 - CL . E . PL
They introduced you(Pl) to him. (Ondarru)
All three auxiliaries contain a dative clitic. However, (35), with a third person
absolutive argument is grammatical, while (36) and (37), with first and second
person absolutive arguments, are not. In Tables A.2, A.4, A.5, A.7 and A.8
in Appendix A, this is reflected in the fact they only contain forms for third
person absolutive. The contrast above illustrates the PCC in ditransitive sentences.
Unaccusative psych-predicates with a dative experiencer such as ondo jausi and
gusta (both translatable as like) give rise to PCC effects in intransitive sentences18 :
(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. (Ondarru)
(39) *Ni-ri su-0/ ondo jaus-ten
me-DAT you(Sg)-ABS well fall-IMP
s -a -t. (>sasta)
CL . A .2. SG - PRS .2. SG - CL . D .1. SG
I like you(Sg). (Ondarru)
(40) *Eur-ai ni-0/ gusta-ten n -a -ko -e.
them-DAT.PL I-ABS like-IMP CL.A.1.SG -PRS.1.SG -CL.D.3 -CL.D.PL
They like me. (Ondarru)
18 As noted by an anonymous reviewer, ondo jausi (as opposed to gusta) is highly stigmatized and
perceived to be a calque from Spanish (it is unattested in dialects not in contact with this language).
In our experience working with informants, it was much easier to elicit the relevant sentences with
ondo jausi rather than gusta. Even though the two predicates have a very similar meaning (like),
many speakers feel that gusta has romantic connotations that ondo jausi does not. Sentences with
the former are thus felt to be too personal (especially when they involve first or second person
arguments) and hence harder to judge than those with the latter. We do not know if any of our
informants are aware of the substandard status of ondo jausi, which apparently had no effect on
their judgments. We thank Olatz Mendiola for bringing to our attention these differences in the
meaning of these predicates and their effects in eliciting PCC-related judgments.
Fig. 2.2 Clitics in a CP

ditransitive sentence
TP C
ClErg C
vP T
ClDat T
KP
VP v
tClErg DP
ApplP V
KP
DPAbs Appl
tClDat DP
As in ditransitives, in the presence of a dative argument, the absolutive can be third

person (38), but not second (39) or first (40).
This restriction on the combination of absolutive and dative clitics in Basque fol-
lows from the absence of third person absolutive clitics in this language (Sect. 2.2.1),
combined with the condition in (41):
(41) Condition on Clitic Hosts
A clitic host in Basque (finite T or C) can only attract one clitic.
Consider first the grammatical sentences containing third person absolutive argu-
ments. The structure of ditransitive (35) is shown in Fig. 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 Fig. 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 first position in the auxiliaries
in these sentences is inserted in the postsyntactic component.
Fig. 2.3 Ungrammatical CP

derivation of a sentence with
absolutive and dative clitics
TP C
vP *T
ClAbs T
ApplP v
ClDat T
KP
VP Appl
tClDat DP
PartP V
tClAbs DP
The preceding analysis predicts PCC effects. Consider, for instance, (36) and
(39), repeated here:
(43) *Eur-ak su-ri neu-0/ presenta-0/
n -a -tzu -0/ -e.
(44) *Ni-ri su-0/ ondo jaus-ten
me-DAT you.SG-ABS well fall-IMP
s -a -t. (>sasta)
CL . A .2. SG - PRS .2. SG - CL . D .1. SG
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 Fig. 2.3 illustrates this for intransitive (44).
To summarize, the 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 sufficient 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.
19 See Sect. 2.3.2 for illustration of this condition with respect to clitics that are hosted in C.
Our analysis of PCC shares many features of previous syntax-based

accounts of the phenomenon (Anagnostopoulou 2003:Chap. 5; Bjar and Rezac
2003; Nevins 2007; Adger and Harbour 2007; Ormazabal and Romero 2007;
Baker 2008:94103). 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 constrained 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.
While our account shares many of the core properties of other approaches to
PCC effects developed for other languages, we note that its particular instantiation
in Basque bears certain differences from other languages, and indeed, may not
necessarily generalize to PCC effects in other languages. Research into such
phenomena has increasingly shown that the Person-Case Constraint is by no means a
homogeneous restriction across languages: Nevins (2007) documents four different
instantiations, with variation restricted by the logic of binary person features and
markedness; Adger and Harbour (2007) and Nevins and Savescu (2010) also
document an interaction with animacy effects and syncretism in certain languages,
and Nevins (2011b) highlights the distinction between PCC effects holding between
indirect object and direct object alone and those also involving subject markers. In
sum, any quest for a unified account of all PCC effects in all languages is quixotic
in nature, as the effects themselves display subtle, often irreconcilable differences
that cannot be reduced to a single mechanism.
Evidence for our particular implementation of PCC effects in Basque comes
from several sources. First, as shown in Sect. 2.2.1, 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 Sect. 2.4.1 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 Sect. 1.4.3 in Chap. 1, the auxiliary contains
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 subject to the same condition, thereby restricting the availability
of this repair 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) and (44) are
doomed to ineffability. In fact, the combination of a nonthird person absolutive
argument with a dative argument is grammatical in nonfinite sentences:
20 Alternatively,H must establish the relation R with the absolutive/accusative argument, but the
higher dative argument defectively blocks the relation.
(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(Sg). (Ondarru)
(46) [Ni-ri su-0/ ondo jaus-ti] nai d -o -t
[me-DAT you(Sg)-ABS well fall-NF] want L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.1.CL
I want to like you(Sg). (Ondarru)
No clitics are generated in nonfinite clauses, so the Condition on Clitic Hosts is
not relevant (see discussion of (17) above). In finite clauses like (43) and (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 su-0/k
/ i ondo jaus-te
me-DAT you(Sg)-ABS/ERGi well fall-IMP
d -o -t -sui . (>stasu)
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . D .1. SG - CL. E.2. SG i
The phenomenon arises in intransitive sentences with the potential to violate the
PCC, namely those with a psych-predicate with a first or second person internal
argument and a dative experiencer. The following sentence provides an additional
example:
(48) Jon-ei gu-0/k/ i es d -o -tz -gui (>dotzau)
Jon-DAT we-ABS/ERGi not L -PRS.3.SG -DAT.3.SG -CL.E.1.PL
gusta-ten.
like-IMP
Jon doesnt like us. (Ondarru)
The clitic that is 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 non-PCC 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
Sect. 2.5. Our account of the phenomenon shares many features with Rezac (2008c)
(including exceptional ergative case on the internal argument), modulo differences
in underlying assumptions about Basque verbal morphology and PCC effects.
Absolutive Promotion seems to be present in several varieties of Basque, but,
unlike other interesting phenomena in Basque finite verbs, it has largely gone
unnoticed in both the descriptive and theoretical work on this language. It was first
described in Aramaio (2001) for Berriatua, a Biscayan town neighboring Ondarru,
and independently for the latter town in Arregi (2004). We have verified that it is also
present in other Biscayan varieties, including Gernika, Mendata, and Mundaka.21
Rezac (2008c), who calls it absolutive displacement, shows it to be present in some
Northern High Navarrese (Errenteria) and Guipuscoan (Legazpi, Tolosa, Zarautz)
varieties. Gaminde (2000) does not report on this phenomenon in Zamudio, and our
own fieldwork 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
Sect. 2.2.2. In this case, Absolutive Promotion is not an option. For instance, (38),
repeated below as (49), does not have a grammatical counterpart with 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
(50) *Ni-ri Jon-0/ek
/ i ondo jaus-te
me-DAT Jon-ABS/ERGi well fall-IMP
d -o -t -0/ i . (>sta)
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
21 We 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 (2008c:80).
Fig. 2.4 Absolutive CP

Promotion
TP C
ClErg C
vP T
ClDat T
KP
ApplP v
tClErg DP
KP
VP Appl
tClDat DP
tPartP V
Chomsky (1991) and Shlonsky (1992), and is therefore is a device restricted to

particular grammars that applies whenever a more general operation is blocked.
Movement of both dative and absolutive clitics is banned across Basque dialects. In
this context, some dialects enact a repair operation that is otherwise not available,
namely Absolutive Promotion. We implement it as follows23 :
(51) Absolutive Promotion (Ondarru)
As a last resort, the internal argument (including the clitic) moves to the
specifier of vP, where it acquires ergative case.
Consider the derivation of (47) in this analysis. As shown in Fig. 2.4, the second
person internal argument PartP is generated as the complement of Appl, with the
experiencer KP in its specifier, as is usual with this type of psych-predicate. The
experiencer has inherent dative case due to the selectional requirements of Appl, and
the internal argument does not have case in its base position (recall that absolutive
case is a default supplied 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 specifier
of vP. This results in ergative case both on 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
specifier of vP explains why dative promotion is not a possible PCC-repair. For
instance, the following is not a possible alternative to (47):
23 Preminger (2012) proposes a similar derivation for Basque sentences with unaccusative verbs
that select ergative case-marked subjects.

(52) *Ni-ri/ki su-0/ ondo jaus-ten

me-DAT/ERGi you(Sg)-ABS well fall-IMP
s -aitu -ti . (>satxut)
CL . A .2. SG - PRS .2. SG - CL . E .1. SG i
Unlike (47), the promoted clitic -t in (52) is doubling the dative experiencer. This
would entail movement of the dative KP to the specifier of vP. However, since the
experiencer KP has dative case, this movement would result in a conflict with the
requirements of v, which selects for an ergative KP in its specifier. In the derivation
of Absolutive Promotion, movement of the internal argument to the specifier of vP
is possible because it does not have 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 C24 :
(53) *Eur-ak su-ri neu-0/k/ i presenta-0/
they-ERG.PL you(Sg)-DAT me-ABS/ERGi introduce-PRF
d -o -tzu -0/ -e -ti . (>tzuet)
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . D .2. SG - CL . E .3 - CL . E . PL - CL . E .1. SG i
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.
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) and (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 (2008c:8586) reports similar idiolectal variation in
other dialects.25 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//00} 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)
24 An alternative to (53) where the promoted clitic precedes the (underlyingly) ergative clitic (d-o-
tzu-t-e>tzute) is also ungrammatical, as expected.
25 The preference is absolute for some speakers.
(55) /
Ni-{k//00} Jon-ei liburu-0/ emo-0/
I-{ERG/ABS} Jon-DAT book-ABS.SG give-PRF
d -o -tz -t. (>tzat)
I have given the book to Jon. (Ondarru)
This is considered highly substandard, and speakers typically perceive it to be due
to influence from Spanish.26 However, it is quite common in casual speech. We pro-
pose that this is a case of syncretism, due to the following optional Impoverishment
rule applying to argument noun phrases in the Postsyntactic component:
(56) Ergative Impoverishment (optional)27
a. Structural description: an argument A that is specified 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 first singular external argument in (55) is enclitic -t, not proclitic n-,
as expected for ergative clitics (see Sect. 3.3.2 in Chap. 3). If it were a syntactic
phenomenon, we would expect the clitic to surface as absolutive, due to agreement
with the doubled argument. Furthermore, this change from ergative to absolutive
case does not make the external argument eligible for agreement with T (which
is restricted to absolutives and datives, as shown in Sect. 2.4 below), as might be
expected if Ergative Impoverishment were a syntactic phenomenon. For instance,
T does not agree with the first singular subject in (55), even if it surfaces with
absolutive case. 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 (54) and (55) 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 specifier of vP. Ergative
26 See Sect. 1.3.1 in Chap. 1 for the notion of substandard that we assume here. As noted by an
anonymous reviewer, the distribution of (56) seems quite erratic and unpredictable, both in terms
of speakers and grammatical context.
27 Ergative Impoverishment changes the case features in the argument from their marked value to
their unmarked value, and is thus a feature reversal rule in the sense of Chap. 4. See Sect. 4.2 in
that chapter for the distinction between feature deletion and feature reversal Impoverishment, and
for our implementation of the latter as deletion of the marked value of the targeted feature followed
by insertion of the unmarked value.
28 See Chap. 4, Sect. 4.6.4 for further discussion of Ergative Impoverishment.
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 that doubles 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 Sect. 2.3.4,
we discuss strategies that are used in ditransitives, as well as those used instead of
Absolutive Promotion in intransitives.
2.3.3 Movement Verbs and PCC Effects
As noted in Sect. 1.4.1 in Chap. 1, psych-verbs are not the only type of unaccusative
predicate with a dative argument. Unaccusative verbs denoting movement can also
have goal arguments with dative case. As noted there, although PCC effects are
consistently observable with psych-predicates, this is not the case with movement
predicates, which are subject to dialectal variation in this respect. In this subsection,
we briefly discuss their syntax, and provide an analysis of this variation. The account
sketched here is highly tentative, since the syntactic properties of these movement
predicates are not as well understood as other predicates with dative arguments. The
discussion here is based on Rezac (2009), which contains more detailed coverage of
the dialectal variation this phenomenon shows in Basque.
Goal arguments of unaccusative movement predicates typically have allative
case. However, animate goals can also surface as datives, in which case they trigger
dative Cliticization in the finite verb:
(57) 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 has arrived for Miren. (Ondarru)
(58) Josepeta-ko Seore-a etor-ko d -a -tzu.
Josepeta-LGEN Lady-ABS.SG come-FUT L -PRS.3.SG -CL.D.2.SG
The Lady from Josepeta will come to you(Sg).
(Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:335)
29 In a prepublication version of Rezac (2008c), the 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 (54), but not in (55) (the published version of the article simply states that case
is stable for 1st/2nd person pronouns: EA [external argument] is ergative, S [intransitive subject]
absolutive (p. 86)). The judgments reported in (54) and (55) are from our Ondarru informant, for
whom Ergative Impoverishment (56) applies for all persons. Rezacs account 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.
Unlike psych-predicate sentences with similar absolutive-dative frames, the dative

goal of a movement verb in Basque seems to be generated lower in the structure
than the absolutive argument (see Sect. 1.4.1 in Chap. 1 for relevant references).
This justifies a structure for these predicates along the following lines:
(59) The underlying structure of movement predicates with dative goals

vP
VP v
PartPAbs V
PP V
KPDat P
In this structure, the dative argument is the complement of an adpositional argument
of the verb, whose higher argument is absolutive. We assume that the source of
dative case on the goal argument is the adposition.
Albizu (1997:910) observes that sentences with these dative goals are exempt
from PCC effects, at least in some dialects, including Batua (the standard dialect):
(60) Absence of PCC effects with movement verbs in Batua

Ni-0/ Peru-ri hurbil-du n -atzai -o.
I-ABS Peru-DAT approach-PRF CL.A.1.SG -PRS.1.SG -CL.D.3.SG
I have approached Peru. (Batua, Albizu 1997:10)
In fact, there seem to be three types of dialect with respect to this phenomenon,
which we shall refer to here as dialects A, B, and C. In dialect A, illustrated
by Batua (60), combinations of absolutive and dative clitics in these sentences is
grammatical in all cases. In dialect B, illustrated by Zamudio, there are important
gaps in the paradigm. For instance, Gaminde (2000:372) reports present tense
auxiliaries only with first singular absolutive clitics in combination with dative
clitics in the contexts where a PCC might be expected, which we take to mean
that combinations involving absolutive clitics with other -features (or with any in
the past tense) are not possible.30 Varied and unsystematic gaps in this paradigm are
typical of many Biscayan varieties; see Rezac (2009) for additional description and
discussion of the facts. Finally, Ondarru is a representative of dialect C, in which
30 We thank Iaki Gaminde for clarifying the Zamudio data for us.
auxiliaries combining dative and (first and second person) absolutive clitics are
never possible31:
(61) PCC effects with movement verbs in Ondarru
*Ni-0/ Miren-ei etorri-0/ n -a -ko.
I-ABS Miren-DAT come-PRF CL.A.1.SG -PRS.1.SG -CL.D.3.SG
I have come to Miren. (Ondarru)
We interpret this dialectal variation as follows. Dialect A lacks PCC effects with
movement verbs (but has them with psych-predicates). Dialect B is the same as
dialect A, with the addition that postsyntactic Obliteration rules of the sort discussed
in Chap. 4 delete dative clitics in the relevant auxiliaries, accounting for the gaps
mentioned above.32 On the other hand, movement verbs do trigger PCC effects in
dialect C, which explains why absolutive-dative clitic combinations in this type of
dialect are altogether banned.
Under this interpretation, this variation reduces to variation between dialects
that lack PCC effects with movement verbs (A/B), and dialects that have them
(C). In the approach to PCC adopted here, this entails that the dative arguments
of movement verbs do not cliticize to T in dialect A/B. We assume that the dative
case (selected by P) on the goal argument with movement verbs is different from
the case determined by Appl for goal and experiencer arguments in ditransitive and
psych-predicate sentences. For ease of exposition, we refer to these cases as dative-
P and dative-Appl, respectively, in this subsection. Furthermore, T is sensitive to
this case difference: it attracts dative-Appl (and absolutive) clitics, but not dative-P
clitics (which perhaps lack one or both of the case features [peripheral, motion]).
Thus, the source of dative-P cliticization in the finite auxiliary must be a head other
than T (or C, which only attracts ergative clitics). For lack of a better name, we
refer to this head as H (for clitic host), which is generated between TP and CP,
as illustrated in Fig. 2.5.33 As a consequence, dative-P clitics do not compete with
absolutives for cliticization to T, and no PCC effects are observed.
In dialect type C, these movement predicates are subject to PCC effects. We
assume that this is because the case selected by P on its goal argument is the same
as the dative case selected by Appl (alternatively, T can attract both dative-P and
dative-Appl clitics). The result is that all dative arguments compete with absolutives
for cliticization to T, giving rise to PCC effects.
31 As for Lekeitio, Hualde et al. (1994:118) does not contain any intransitive forms with (first or
second person) absolutive clitics in the context of a dative clitic, which we assume entails that
Lekeitio is also a type C dialect.
32 In the particular case of Zamudio, this would involve deletion of dative clitics in the context of
absolutive clitics other than first singular (which notably, lack [ participant]see Sect. 4.3.2 in
Chap. 4which may condition such deletion rules) in the present tense, and in the context of any
absolutive clitic in the past tense.
33 We also assume that T moves through H on its way to C. Given the Linearization rules established
in Sect. 2.2.2, the result, as desired, is that the absolutive clitic precedes T, and the dative clitic
follows it.
Fig. 2.5 H as the host of CP

dative-P clitics
HP C
TP H
ClDat-P H
vP T
ClAbs T
VP v
PartP V
tClAbs DP PP V
tClDat DP P
Although movement predicates are subject to the PCC, there is an important

difference with respect to other predicates with dative arguments: Absolutive
Promotion is not a possible repair in the former case. For instance, the following
sentence is not a grammatical alternative to (61) in Ondarru:
(62) No Absolutive Promotion with movement verbs in Ondarru
*Ni-0/k
/ Miren-ei etorri-0/
I-ABS/ERG Miren-DAT come-PRF
Instead, the only possible repair consists in generating the goal argument with
allative case instead of dative (recall that allative case is always available with goal
arguments of movement predicates; see the next subsection for discussion of the
same repair with some ditransitive verbs):
(63) Allative case repair with movement verbs in Ondarru

Ni-0/ Miren-eana etorri-0/ n -as.
I-ABS Miren-ALL come-PRF CL.A.1.SG -PRS.1.SG
The reason for the unavailability of Absolutive Promotion with these predicates
is implicit in our discussion of this operation in the previous subsection. Recall
that sentences with Absolutive Promotion involve a prior step of cliticization of
the higher argument to T. In sentences with psych-predicates, this argument is the
dative experiencer. Subsequently, Absolutive Promotion moves the lower absolutive
argument to the specifier of vP, where it acquires ergative case (which is possible
because, by hypothesis, absolutive arguments are caseless in the syntax). However,
in sentences with movement predicates, the absolutive argument is the higher of the
two, so it is the argument that undergoes cliticization to T. Absolutive Promotion,
then, can only apply to the lower dative argument. Since this argument has dative
case, movement to the specifier of vP would result in a conflict with the case-
selectional requirements of v.
The fact that movement predicates of this sort feature a dative and absolutive
argument whose case and auxiliary forms look otherwise indistinguishable from
PCC-violating psych-verbs implicates a distinct underlying syntax for the two.
Movement verbs of this type impose a different hierarchical order among their
arguments, and the lower goal argument may have a distinct case from that of
experiencer datives (as well as goals in ditransitives), or the former may end up
with the same case as the latter (perhaps through a kind of Differential Object
Marking specific to animate allatives). These assumptions about the derivation of
these sentences, combined with our analysis of the PCC, account for the variation
found among Basque dialects in the distribution of PCC effects and the repairs
among the different argument-structural types.
2.3.4 Other PCC Repairs
Repairs to the PCC besides Absolutive Promotion have not been subject to detailed
study in the descriptive or theoretical literature, and we limit our remarks to
providing some basic description of them, and sketching how each strategy fits into
our analysis of Basque finite auxiliaries.
A common PCC repair in ditransitive sentences, first noted in de Zavala (1848:8),
is to omit the dative clitic:
(64) Eur-ak ni-ri seu-0/ presenta-0/
they-ERG.PL me-DAT you(Sg)-ABS introduce-PRF
s -aitu -0/ -e. (>satxue)
CL . A .2. SG - PRS .2. SG - CL . E .3 - CL . E . PL
Theyve introduced you(Sg) to me. (Ondarru)
On the other hand, omitting the absolutive clitic also seems possible:
(65) Eur-ak su-ri neu-0/ presenta-0/
L - PRS .3. SG CL . D .2. SG - CL . E .3 - CL . E . PL
In both cases, a violation of the Condition on Clitic Hosts is avoided by excep-
tionally not generating one of the two clitics. It is not clear to us what governs
which clitic is generated.34 As shown above, it seems that, when one of the clitics is
first 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):
(66) Eur-ak su-ri liburu-0/ bixal-du
they-ERG.PL you(Sg)-DAT book-ABS.SG send-PRF
They have sent the book to you(Sg). (Ondarru)
(67) Eur-ak su-ana liburu-0/ bixal-du
they-ERG.PL you(Sg)-ALL book-ABS.SG send-PRF
d -au -0/ -e. (>rabe)
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . E .3. - CL . E . PL
They have sent the book to you(Sg). (Ondarru)
Under these circumstances, a nonthird person absolutive argument makes the
alternative case on the goal argument obligatory:
(68) *Eur-ak su-ri neu-0/ bixal-du
they-ERG.PL you(Sg)-DAT me-ABS send-PRF
n -a -tzu -0/ -e.
They have sent me to you(Sg). (Ondarru)
(69) Eur-ak su-ana neu-0/ bixal-du
they-ERG you(Sg)-ALL me-ABS send-PRF
n -au -0/ -e. (>nabe)
CL .1. SG - PRS .1. SG - CL . E .3 - CL . E . PL
They have sent me to you(Sg). (Ondarru)
Dative case on the goal argument would lead to a violation of the Condition on Clitic
Hosts, thus forcing selection of an alternative case.
Unlike ditransitives, 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
34 The general modular and derivational division of labor assumed here precludes the possibility of
postsyntactically rescuing a derivation in which two clitics have illicitly moved to the same T head
in the syntax.
Arretxe (1994) (cited in Rezac 2008c:100101). In Basauri, the dative experiencer

argument is doubled by a clitic, but the first or second person theme argument is not:
(70) Ni-0/ ber-ari e y -a -ko (>txako) guste-tan.
I-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 (65). We do not have sufficient 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 this language has been described in great detail, it is somewhat surprising
that its repairs have not. Most of the currently limited research in the literature
concentrates on Absolutive Promotion, for which we have provided 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 find
out if this is indeed the case. We return to the importance of Absolutive Promotion
in Chap. 6.
2.4 Agreement
The previous sections provide a pronominal clitic analysis for certain morphemes
in the auxiliary that in our view have been misanalyzed as agreement in previous
literature. This section discusses what we argue is, by contrast, 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 Sect. 3.4 in Chap. 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 Sect. 2.4.1 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 -feature values of the Goal onto the Probe
(Sect. 2.4.2).
Importantly, we claim these two steps to be necessary in order to maintain
a division of labor according to which, while the realization of agreement may
have postsyntactic sensitivies, certain aspects of the agreement process itself are
syntactic. Models where all agreement is postsyntactic (Marantz 2000; Bobaljik
2008b) face certain challenges. First, they require a morphological realization
component that needs global access to the entire derivational history of a particular
clause (in order to recover the highest underlying argument in the vP, the position
of which may subsequently be affected by scrambling). Even more worrisome is
2.4 Agreement 81
the fact that under the Y-model of grammar, in which PF and LF have no direct
interface but are only mediated by prior shared computation in the syntax, a fully
PF-model of agreement is unable to deal with grammatical phenomena in which
the LF component is sensitive to the presence or absence of syntactic agreement
effects such as those described by Nevins and Anands (2003) PEPPER principle,
according to which LF reconstruction in an A-chain depends on agreement having
occurred at some point within that chain. If agreement is purely postsyntactic, such
effects cannot be accommodated. We therefore cleft agreement into these two steps:
Agree-Link, which establishes a syntactic relation between Probe and Goal elements
(see e.g. Pesetsky and Torrego 2007), and Agree-Copy, which postsyntactically
enacts the valuation of features on the Probe. See also Bhatt and Walkow (2011)
for independent empirical arguments that agreement must be decomposed into both
syntactic and postsyntactic steps.
During the process of Agree-Copy in Basque, a language-particular condition
on copying sources explains why T typically surfaces with absolutive agreement
only, and why dative agreement is realized overtly in certain specific environments.
The section concludes with discussion of the complementizer agreement morpheme
(Sect. 2.4.3). We argue that it is the result of a postsyntactic insertion of a morpheme
adjoined to C 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 specific
sentences depend on the number and type of arguments present in the clause. We
discuss four central cases below: a clause with (a) absolutive and ergative arguments,
(b) a single absolutive argument, (c) absolutive and dative arguments, and (d)
absolutive, ergative, and dative arguments. Clauses with no absolutive argument
result in default agreement, and are discussed in detail in Sect. 2.5.
The discussion of our analysis of Agree below must be considered in light of
the fact that arguments in finite clauses trigger Cliticization, as shown in Sect. 2.2.
Specifically, clitics are generated in the specifier positions of certain functional
heads projected above arguments:
(71) The structure of clitic-doubled arguments
KP/PartP
Clitic K /Part
Argument K/Part
Depending on the case and -features of the argument, only KP, only PartP, or both
are projected (Sect. 2.2.1). Since the clitic is higher than the argument, T in fact
Fig. 2.6 Agreement between CP

T and an absolutive argument
TP C
vP TAbs-2Sg
KPErg
VP v
PartPAbs-2Sg V
agrees with the former. As shown in Sect. 2.2.2, 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 (Sect. 2.2.1).
In this case, T agrees directly with the argument. In most cases, agreement with a
clitic is indistinguishable from agreement with its associated argument, since they
share -features. However, a postsyntactic operation that alters the case features of
certain clitics that form part of the auxiliary M-wordbut not necessarily those of
their associated argumentshas an effect on the realization of agreement in T, as
discussed in Sect. 2.4.2 below. This provides evidence that agreement is with the
clitic, not with the argument.
Consider first the derivation of a sentence with an absolutive argument and an
ergative argument:
(72) Ni-k seu-0/ ikus-i s -aitu -t. (>satxut)
I-ERG you(Sg)-ABS see-PRF CL.A.2.SG -PRS.2.SG -CL.E.1.SG
I have seen you(Sg). (Ondarru)
The relevant aspects of the derivation of this sentence are shown in Fig. 2.6.35 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 (72).36 The syntax
of agreement in this type of sentence is the same as in one with a single absolutive
argument:
(73) Lau aste-an ego-n n -as geixorik.
As in the previous example, T agrees with the absolutive clitic, resulting in first
singular absolutive agreement.
35 The category of argument positions in this structure can be DP, PartP or KP, depending on factors
discussed in Sect. 2.2.1.

36 On the fact that the ergative argument is ignored by the syntax of agreement, see below.
2.4 Agreement 83
Fig. 2.7 Agreement between CP

T and absolutive and dative
arguments
TP C
vP TDat-2Sg/Abs-3Sg
KPErg
VP v
ApplP V
KPDat-2Sg
DPDat-3Sg App
Consider next a ditransitive sentence, with absolutive, dative, and ergative

arguments (see Sect. 1.4.1 in Chap. 1 for justification of our analysis of dative goals):
(74) Liburu-a emo-n d -o -tzu -t.
Ive given the book to you. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:125)
As depicted in Fig. 2.7, 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 typically only
surfaces with absolutive agreement in this case. This is illustrated in (74), where
the exponent -o- of T only realizes features agreeing with the absolutive argument
(third singular). This is due to a postsyntactic operation of Agree-Copy related to
agreement that is discussed in Sect. 2.4.2. Positing an Agree-Link operation with the
dative argument that is masked postsyntactically might seem unnecessary. However,
the -features of dative arguments do surface under specific circumstances in some
dialects, which justifies this part of the analysis. The following is a relevant example
from Lekeitio (Hualde et al. 1994; Fernndez 2001; Rezac 2008b):
(75) Mokixe-k gu-ri tabaku-a erregala-0/
Mokixe-ERG us-DAT tobacco-ABS.SG give-PRF
g -aitu -0.
/ (>gaitxu)
CL . A .1. PL - PRS .1. PL - CL . E .3. SG
Mokixe has given us tobacco. (Lekeitio, Fernndez 2001:153)
In this auxiliary, T surfaces with the -features of the first 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 Sect. 2.4.2.
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:
(76) 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 Sect. 1.4.1 in Chap. 1, these sentences have the following basic
structure (higher functional projections are omitted):
(77) vP
ApplP v
KPDat
VP Appl
DPAbs V
In a way similar to ditransitives (Fig. 2.7), T agrees with both the dative clitic and
the absolutive argument, and only absolutive agreement surfaces (third singular in
(76)).
Although ergative and dative are determined in the syntax in a similar way
(as opposed to absolutive, which is a postsyntactic default), they interact with
agreement in different ways in Basque. Specifically, we make the following claims:
(78) 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.
(79) Dative case and agreement
A dative argument is a possible Goal for Agree by T.
For instance, in (74), 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.37
This Basque-internal variation in the interaction of agreement with syntactically
case-marked arguments reflects well-known cross-linguistic variation. It seems
that we can establish a three-way typology of syntactic cases according to their
interaction with agreement:
37 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 Sect. 3.4 in Chap. 3, the presence of an ergative clitic in the auxiliary
has important consequences for Vocabulary Insertion in this node.
2.4 Agreement 85
(80) Syntactic case and agreement possibilities

a. A syntactic case may be transparent: it is not a possible Goal for
Agree, and does not block Agree with other arguments.
b. A syntactic case may be a defective intervener: it is not a possible Goal
for Agree, and blocks Agree with other arguments.
c. A syntactic case may be successfully targeted for Agree.
Ergative case in Basque instantiates (80a). It is also illustrated by both ergative and
dative cases in Hindi, in which T agrees with arguments marked as nominative, even
in the presence of intervening higher ergative or dative arguments38:
(81) Raam-ne rot.ii kh aayii
Ram.M-ERG bread.F.NOM eat.PRF.F.SG
Ram ate bread. (Hindi, Mahajan 1990:78)
(82) Tuaar-ko kh uii huii
Tushar.M-DAT happiness.F.NOM happen.PRF.F.SG
Tushar became happy. (Hindi, Mohanan 1994:141)
Dative case in Icelandic displays the behavior in (80b): it does not trigger agreement
but does block agreement between T and a nominative argument:
(83) a virist einhverjum manni hestarnir vera seinir.
EXPL seem.3 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 (80c), since, as discussed above, it triggers
agreement with T. Dative subjects in Faroese have the same property, as well as
ergative subjects in Nepali39 :
(84) 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)
(85) mai-le bhaat khaay-en.
I-ERG rice.NOM ate-1.SG
I ate rice. (Nepali, Verma 1976:272)
Summarizing, for each syntactic 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.
38 Our two sources for Hindi examples use different orthographic conventions. The examples have
been adapted to a single transliteration system.

39 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 exemplified by dative-marked direct objects in Gujarati (Mistry 1976).
To conclude, T conducts Agree-Link 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.
2.4.2 Agree-Copy
As described above, T in Basque establishes Agree-Link with both absolutive and

dative arguments (if present in the clause). However, in cases of Multiple Agree,
only one of these two feature sets will actually surface in T. In most cases, this is the
absolutive feature set. For instance, in (76), repeated here as (86), T agrees with both
the absolutive and dative arguments, but this is only reflected overtly as agreement
with the third person singular absolutive argument:
(86) 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 facts40 :
(87) Agreement by Probe P with Goal G proceeds in two steps:
a. Agree-Link: in the syntax, P has unvalued -features that trigger
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 values of 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:Chap. 4)
and Bhatia et al. (2009) (see also Bhatt and Walkow 2011).
In addition, Agree-Copy can be subject to language-particular constraints.
Specifically, we propose the following condition for Basque41 :
(88) Condition on Agree-Copy in Basque
Only feature values from an absolutive Goal can be copied to a Probe.
40 We thank an anonymous reviewer for helpful discussion on the precise definition of the two steps
of agreement proposed here.

41 The postsyntactic theory of agreement proposed in Bobaljik (2008b) includes conditions similar
to (88); it differs, however, in that the latter lacks a role for hierarchically- and locality-sensitive
conditions on agreement in the Syntax module.
2.4 Agreement 87
The result is that T ordinarily 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 postsyntactic operations that precede Agree-
Copy can result in surface agreement with a dative clitic. This is the case of Lekeitio,
where a dialect-specific Impoverishment rule changes the case features of first
person dative clitics to absolutive in ditransitive auxiliaries42:
(89) First Dative Impoverishment (Lekeitio)43
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].
b. Structural change: Cl1 [motion, peripheral, +author].
This has important consequences for the morphology of auxiliaries containing these
clitics. Consider the following examples (the first one is repeated from (75)):
(90) Mokixe-k gu-rii tabaku-a erregala-0/
Mokixe-ERG us-DATi tobacco-ABS.SG give-PRF
gi -aitu -0.
/ (>gaitxu)
CL . A .1. PL i - PRS .1. PL - CL . E .3. SG
(91) Ni-rii ber-ak esa-n ni -au -0.
/ (>nau)
me-DATi he-ERG say-PRF CL.A.1.SGi -PRS.1.SG/3.SG -CL.E.3.SG
He has told me so. (Lekeitio, de Azkue 1925:539)
(92) Su-k ni-rii tabaku-a emo-n
you(Sg)-ERG me-DATi tobacco-ABS.SG give-PRF
ni -a -su.
CL . A .1. SG i - PRS .1. SG - CL . E .2. SG
You(Sg) have given me tobacco. (Lekeitio, Fernndez 2001:150)
As indicated by coindexation, the first person dative argument is doubled by a
clitic that is morphologically absolutive, as witnessed by the fact that it surfaces
42 According to Hualde et al. (1994:127), the phenomenon occurs optionally in the past. However,
the past ditransitive paradigms provided 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 (89) only applies in the present tense (see Tables A.4, A.5,
A.7, and A.8 in Appendix A). It could easily be extended by adding a condition to the effect that it
optionally applies in the past.
43 First Dative Impoverishment changes the case features in the targeted clitic from their marked
value to their unmarked value, and is thus a feature reversal rule in the sense of Chap. 4.
See Sect. 4.2 in that chapter for the distinction between feature deletion and feature reversal
Impoverishment, and for our implementation of the latter as deletion of the marked value of the
targeted feature followed by insertion of the unmarked value.
to the left of T.44 This is a consequence of (89) changing its features to absolutive.
Crucially, the change in case features in the clitic also enables copying of its -
feature values onto T, the result being that T surfaces with first person agreement
in (90)(92). Although T Agree-Links with both the dative clitic and the absolutive
argument, and Agree-Copy transfers both sets of feature values to T, only dative
agreement features surface in T in (90) and (92). The T exponent -au- in (91)
is ambiguous between first singular (agreeing with the dative argument) or third
singular (agreeing with the absolutive argument). The details of the realization of
multiple-agreeing auxiliaries of this type are dealt with in Sect. 3.4.4 of Chap. 3.
Although (89) changes the case features of the clitic in (90)(92), the features
of the doubled dative argument guri/niri remain intact. As discussed in Sect. 2.4.1,
this provides evidence that Agree occurs with the clitic, not its associated argument.
If T had established Agree with the dative argument in (90)(92), the Condition on
Agree-Copy in Basque (88) would prevent copying its -feature values to T, and it
would not surface with first singular features, contrary to fact.
Among the three varieties studied in detail in this book, First Dative Impoverish-
ment is only present in Lekeitio. Thus, it is the only variety among the three in which
Agree-Copy by T ever yields surface 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; Lafitte 1944:296;
Hualde et al. 1994:124127; Fernndez 2001; Rezac 2008b).45
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-specific
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. The deviation from this pattern that results in surface
agreement with dative arguments is due to other operations interleaved between
Agree-Link and Agree-Copy, both of which have a fixed and invariant character
across dialects.
2.4.3 Complementizer Agreement
Recall that the morphemes in the Basque auxiliary are ordered as follows:
Abs clitic Tense/Agreement Dat clitic Erg clitic Comp agreement
Comp
44 This also results in the clitic being realized as g/n-, not -ku/t, the expected form for first person
dative clitics. See Sect. 3.3 in Chap. 3 for the relation between the Linearization of clitics and their
exponence.
45 In the generative literature, the phenomenon is known as dative displacement, a label due to
Fernndez (2001). See Sect. 5.6 in Chap. 5 for further discussion.

2.4 Agreement 89
Complementizer agreement is a morpheme that surfaces between the ergative clitic

(if present) and the complementizer in Biscayan dialects, including Lekeitio, On-
darru, 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:
(94) indab-ak imin-ten
bean-ABS.PL put-IMP
d -o -t -s -n -ean (>dotesenean)
L - PRS .3. PL - CL . E .1. SG -3. PL - CREL - IN . SG
when I serve beans (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:262)
(95) iddarr-ak ipi-txe
bean-ABS.PL put-IMP
d -oitu -a -s -n -in (>txuasenin)
when I serve beans (Ondarru)
(94) is a Zamudio example with third plural absolutive agreement in T, and (95) 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.46 Therefore, it seems that -s realizes a morpheme that
contains the same feature specification as T. As made clear by the Ondarru example
above, this morpheme is not fissioned 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 Sect. 3.3.4 in
Chap. 3 is fissioned from plural clitics. See Sect. 3.3.6 for discussion of systematic
differences between clitic -e and Complementizer Agreement -s that provide further
justification to our analysis.
We propose that this -s is the consequence of the postsyntactic insertion of a
morpheme attached to C that copies all -features from T47 :
(96) Complementizer Agreement
Adjoin a morpheme to C with the same -feature specification as T.
The result of this operation is the following structure in the particular case of (95)
(coindexation is used here to mark sharing of -features):
46 This is not transparent in the Zamudio example: the exponent o is in fact syncretic for the
singular/plural distinction in this particular environment in Zamudio. The fact that the plural feature
is realized both in the C and the T position is clear in the Ondarru example, as the latter dialect
maintains the singular/plural distinction in this context: oitu is specific to third plural agreement
(see Sect. 3.4.3 in Chap. 3 for a detailed discussion of Vocabulary Insertion in T in both Zamudio
and Ondarru).
47 Alternatively, it could be that complementizer agreement copies features from T directly onto C,
which then undergoes Fission; see Sect. 3.3.4 in Chap. 3 for our implementation of the latter DM
operation.
(97) Complementizer agreement in (95)

C
T C
L Ti ClErg C
d oitu a
Agri C
s n
Given the Linearization procedure proposed in Sect. 2.2.2, the result 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 noun phrase 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 finite verb is overt, but not in phrasal
comparatives, where the subject may be overt, but the finite verb is not (examples
from Bayer 1984:269)48:
(98) a. DResl is gresser als wia-st du bist.
the.Resl is taller than as-2.SG you are
Resl is taller than you are. (Bavarian)
b. *DResl is gresser als wia-st du.
the.Resl is taller than as-2.SG you
Resl is taller than you. (Bavarian)
c. DResl is gresser als wia du.
the.Resl is taller than as you
Resl is taller than you. (Bavarian)
A related argument for our analysis of Biscayan complementizer agreement can be
found in Lekeitio. As shown in Sect. 2.4.2, T typically manifests agreement with
the absolutive argument. However, in Lekeitio, dative agreement on T is possible,
namely in cases where First Dative Impoverishment (89) changes the case of a
48 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 T
(Ackema and Neeleman 2004:236250; van Koppen 2005:Chap. 2).
2.4 Agreement 91
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 (90)):
(99) Mokixe-k gu-ri tabaku-a erregala-0/
Mokixe-ERG us-DAT tobacco-ABS.SG give-PRF
g -aitu -0.
/ (>gaitxu)
Interestingly, if the dative argument is plural, as in (99), 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 (99) is also
possible (Hualde et al. 1994:125). Crucially, complementizer 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.49 Furthermore, since surface
agreement with the dative argument is due to a postsyntactic rule of Impoverish-
ment, copying of the features from T to C must be postsyntactic as well.50
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:
(100) s -aitu -0/ -s
CL . A .2. SG - PRS .2. SG - CL . E .3. SG -2.SG
In this particular example, -s surfaces optionally in Lekeitio and Zamudio, and
it is absent in Ondarru.51 This fact is diachronically intimately related to the
colloquial/formal distinction present in second person singular forms in other
Basque dialects (Sect. 1.4.5 in Chap. 1), to which we turn immediately below.
The generally accepted historical evolution of second person forms in Basque
(Alberdi 1995; Trask 1997:196) is as follows. As shown in Table 2.1, the second
person singular pronoun zu (su in Biscayan), as well as its corresponding clitics and
49 The fact that -s is optional in this form is a reflex of the more general irregular distribution of this
exponent, discussed immediately below. Specifically, it is also optional in Lekeitio when agreement
in T is with an absolutive first plural argument (see Table A.3 in Appendix A).
50 Under a different set of assumptions, in which both Agree-Link and Agree-Copy could establish
a direct relation between C and absolutive and dative arguments, the derivation would go through
without necessarily involving mediation by T. While we adopt Fus (2008) proposal based on his
evidence that in some cases, complementizer agreement that must be mediated by T is possible,
the evidence in Basque does not force this option. A detalied study of Closest Conjunct Agreement
with both C and T, which we have not undertaken, might prove useful in deciding this question for
Basque (see Footnote 48).
51 The absence of -s in this particular auxiliary in Ondarru is due to the irregular distribution
of this exponent throughout Biscayan, discussed at the end of this subsection. Differences in
the application of certain phonological rules (Sect. 3.6 in Chap. 3) account for other surface
differences: saitxu(s) in Lekeitio, satxu in Ondarru, and saitu(s) in Zamudio.
Table 2.1 Second person pronouns in Basque

Old Basque Batua Lekeitio/Ondarru/Zamudio
Singular Plural Singular Plural Singular Plural
Colloquial hi
Neutral hi zu zu-e su su-e
Formal zu
Table 2.2 Second person

clitics in Lekeitio, Ondarru, Absolutive Dative Ergative
and Zamudio Singular s- -tzu -su
Plural s- . . . -e -tzu-e -su-e
agreement morphemes, was historically in fact plural. The second singular pronoun
was hi. At this early stage, no colloquial/formal distinction was present in the
language (indicated with the label neutral in Table 2.1). 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 ad-
dition of a new second person plural pronoun zu-e through the attachment of plural
-e to zu.52 The resulting paradigm, which is still active in many Basque dialects,
including Batua (the standard dialect; see 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 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.53 However, as illustrated by the presence of plural
-s in (100), the singular/plural distinction in the second person is neutralized in
complementizer agreement.54 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.
52 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. The similarity between the plural -e found alongside these pronouns and
the plural clitic -e in the auxiliary complex is suggestive of a single underlying vocabulary entry for
the two, as well as a single source for their positioning (namely, Fission; see Chap. 3, Sect. 3.3.4).
53 We analyze this plural clitic morpheme as the result of Fission in Sect. 3.3 in Chap. 3. Note that
in the absolutive paradigm, the morpheme realizing person is to the left of T, while the fissioned
plural morpheme is to the right of T. The surface position of this plural clitic exponent is discussed
in Sect. 5.3 in Chap. 5.
54 It might be argued that verbal agreement in general has neutralized the number distinction in the
second person. For instance, aitu in (100) is also the exponent of T agreeing with first and second
plural in the present tense. In Sect. 3.4 in Chap. 3, we provide an analysis of the realization of T in
which aitu and similar exponents realize a person feature, not number.
2.4 Agreement 93
We thus propose that this complex historical process has resulted in the following
second person system in modern Basque. First, pronouns and clitics are specified for
singular/plural number, as reflected in the absence/presence of plural -e (Tables 2.1
and 2.2). Due to Agree-Link (and Agree-Copy), this distinction is passed along to
T, but is neutralized by the following rule that applies within the Morphological
Concord module of the Postsyntactic component, after -feature values have been
copied onto complementizer agreement55:
(101) M-feature Insertion
a. Structural description: a complementizer agreement morpheme spec-
ified 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].
(102) Vocabulary entry for complementizer agreement
s [+M]
Rule (101) replaces the number feature in both plural and second singular comple-
mentizer agreement with the feature [+M]. This neutralizes number in the context of
second person. The unique entry for this morpheme (102) realizes this feature as -s,
thus accounting for its idiosyncratic distribution: plural and second person singular.
Note that (101) 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.
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 (89) in Lekeitio (Sect. 2.4.2) changes the case features
of a first person clitic from marked dative to unmarked absolutive. Chapters 3
and 4 provide other cases of Impoverishment, which result in a comparatively
unmarked feature bundle. One of the main objectives of this book is to establish
Impoverishment 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 agree-
ment is apparently realized as if it were marked plural. Having both types of
feature-changing rules (marked to unmarked and vice versa) would considerably
55 The analysis is somewhat more complicated in dialects with a colloquial/formal distinction in
the singular, as discussed above. In case (101aii), the morpheme must be specified as formal.
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 made available to all languages. The grammar 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]). By
hypothesis, only one such M-feature is available for each language, and as a result,
the analysis predicts that syncretism from unmarked to marked is the direct result of
M-feature rewriting that yields insertion of the same exponent for apparently distinct
feature bundles.56 Other potentially relevant cases of M-feature Insertion uniting
marked feature-values with no particular identity on which to base Vocabulary
Insertion otherwise would include the syncretism between second person formal
and third person feminine in Italian (e.g. lei) and between second person formal
and third person plural in German (e.g. sie). In Biscayan 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 thereby predicts that all other cases of syncretism are due
to Impoverishment rules that result in unmarked feature-bundles.
The exponent of complementizer agreement, -s, exhibits another idiosyncratic
property in its irregular distribution. As can be seen in the tables in Appendix A,
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 first 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 A.3 in Appendix A). Dialectal variation in the distribution of -s can be
observed in the present tense ditransitive form with a third plural dative clitic and a
first 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 A.5 in Appendix A). We assume
that this is due to dialect-particular rules that delete the plural morpheme in specific
morphological contexts.
Thus concludes our account of complementizer agreement in Biscayan Basque.
While it is complex, the analysis provides an account of its highly idiosyncratic
placement and distribution, independent from that of other morphemes, and
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
56 In principle, M-feature Insertion has the potential to condition insertion of exponents based
on a combination of [+M] and other features, e.g. [+M, past]. Though we have not found
a case of feature insertion that requires vocabulary entries of this sort, we note that they are
expressible within the present theory, thereby potentially limiting the statement that M-feature
Insertion ensures syncretism by a single exponent.
2.5 Default Agreement 95
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 positioning at the right edge.57 Also previously noted as 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-yielding mechanisms.
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 finds a parallel in many other languages, provides a
relatively straightforward account of many of the syntactic properties of the Basque
auxiliary. Further justification of this claim is provided in Sect. 3.4 in Chap. 3, which
provides a full account of the morphophonological properties of this morpheme in
the varieties of Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio. Our analysis differs significantly
from previous accounts of the auxiliary root, both in its syntactic and postsyntactic
aspects. Importantly, most other authors often decompose this part of the auxiliary
into several morphemes. In sharp contrast, we claim that the root constitutes a
single morpheme. These different types of analysis of the syntax of auxiliaries make
distinct predictions concerning their morphophonology, and in Chap. 3 we test these
predictions, concluding that our analysis provides a more adequate explanation.
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 the lack of a specific 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 of morphology, including Distributed
Morphology, and its instantiation in Basque agreement is discussed at several points
in Chap. 3. In this section, we concentrate on what can be considered bona fide
default agreement. Extending arguments made in Preminger (2009), we contend
57 See Sect. 3.3.6 in Chap. 3 for comparison of Biscayan -s with other number-related morphemes
in this and other dialects. We examine and ultimately reject an analysis of this exponent that relates
it more directly to agreement in T.
that in several cases, Agree-Link (and/or Agree-Copy) fail to assign -feature

values to T, in which case unmarked third singular features are inserted in this
node. The section concludes with discussion of differences between agreement and
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 -feature values in the Probe. Given the two-stage theory of
agreement proposed here, this claim is implemented as follows:
(103) Default Agreement
If Agree-Copy fails to copy feature values onto a Probe, unmarked values
are inserted in the Probe.
Given that T in Basque is a Probe for person and number features, the unmarked
features inserted under default agreement are third person and singular number:
(104) Default T agreement in Basque
If Agree-Copy fails to copy feature values onto finite T, the feature set
[participant, author, +singular] is inserted in T.
See Chap. 4 for justification of the claim that these are unmarked -feature values.58
The first case illustrating (104) comes from Absolutive Promotion. The following
is a relevant example, repeated from (47):
(105) Ni-ri su-0/k
/ i ondo jaus-te
me-DAT you(Sg)-ABS/ERGi well fall-IMP
d -o -t -sui . (>stasu)
As shown in Sect. 2.3.2, T in this sentence agrees with the dative first singular clitic
-t, but not with the promoted second singular clitic -su, which acquires ergative case
due to Absolutive Promotion. Since only feature values from an absolutive Goal can
be copied to T, Agree-Copy fails to supply any values. As a result, unmarked third
singular features are inserted in T.
58 While our account specifically appeals to a rule of default value insertion of the sort in (104),
for the case at hand it is theoretically possible that all of the vocabulary entries that we specify as
bearing [participant, author, +singular] (i.e. third singular) in Sect. 3.4 in Chap. 3 may actually
be un(der)specified, in which case the apparent default agreement arises not as the result of an
active rule, but simply as a fortuitous result of the vocabulary entries compatible with a literally
absent set of agreement feature velues. The account adopted in this book, in which (103) plays an
active role in ensuring the identity of auxiliaries in sentences that lack an absolutive argument and
auxiliaries in sentences with absolutive third singular arguments, is arguably more restrictive as it
predicts that no dialect could show a morphological distinction between these two forms; which
appears to be borne out.
The second case is provided by unergative verbs. The argument is from

Preminger (2009:650653). 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, 1996:2.1.2; Etxepare 2003b:388391, 394402)59:
(106) Barre-0/ i-te d -o -su? (>su)
laugh-ABS do-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.2.SG
Do you laugh? (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:96)
(107) 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 59) 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:
(108) 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)
(109) Umi-k amen jolas-ten d -au -0/ -e. (>dabe)
child-ERG.PL here play-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.3 -CL.E.PL
Children play here. (Ondarru)
The predicates sole argument is ergative, and there is no absolutive DP in these
cases. However, T displays third person singular agreement as a consequence of
(104).
One might avert 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 (106)(107) and (108)(109) would be simply due to variation
in the surface realization of the object position in this type of theory.
59 The absolutive argument is typically marked as indefinite, as in (106) (see Sect. 1.4.2 in Chap. 1
for (in)definiteness marking in Basque nominals). In some dialects, some of these are marked as
definite singular, such as biarra work in Ondarru (107). Other predicates in this latter class are
formed with the definite singular nouns, e.g. 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. Lekeitio
scream is formed with indefinite txilidxo). In some cases, the noun can be definite plural: plantak
(to form the predicate to clown) in both dialects, bakiak peace in Lekeitio (cf. definite singular
baki in Ondarru), and kariuk caress in Ondarru (cf. indefinite kario in Lekeitio). These plural
nouns trigger plural agreement in the auxiliary, as expected. Unergative predicates that use definite
nouns in Zamudio are found in Gaminde (2000:301305) (e.g. txixe urine, as in Ondarru and
Lekeitio).
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 (106)(107), 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 case60 :
(110) Umi-k amen baltziu-an ei-txen
child-ERG.PL here dance-IN.SG do-IMP
d -au -0/ -e. (>dabe)
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . E .3 - CL . E . PL
Children dance here. (Ondarru)
(111) I-ten g -endu -n an kart-etan gero.
do-IMP 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. Although the object
of the unergative predicate is not absolutive in (110) and (111), 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
Sect. 2.2.2, the internal argument of the verb look has lexical dative case, and the
subject is ergative. Thus, sentences with this verb have no absolutive argument. The
effect of this on agreement is illustrated in the following example:
(112) Jon-ek zeu-ei bea-tu
Jon-ERG you(Pl)-DAT look-PRF
d -o -tzu -e -0.
/ (>tzue)
L - PST.3. SG - CL . D .2 - CL . D . PL - CL . E .3. SG
Jon has looked at you(Pl). (Ondarru)
As predicted by (104), 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
act in 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. For example, a dative goal
60 When marked as inessive, the noun is definite singular or plural, as in (110) and (111),
respectively. With some predicates, an adverb is used instead of an oblique noun.
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 (113).
If no dative goal is present, no clitic doubling obtains, and no default clitic appears
in the dative position in the auxiliary (114).
(113) Ni-k umi-ai jugeti-k erregala-te
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)
(114) Ni-k jugeti-k erregala-te d -oitu -a -s. (>txuas)
I-ERG toy-ABS.PL give-IMP L -PRS.3.PL -CL.E.1.SG -3.PL
I give toys away. (Ondarru)
Ergative cliticization follows the same pattern, as can be observed in the following
minimal pair:
(115) Ni-k basu-0/ apur-tu d -o -t. (>rot)
I-ERG glass-ABS.SG break-PRF L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.1.SG
I have broken the glass. (Ondarru)
(116) Basu-0/ apur-tu d -a. (>re)
glass-ABS.SG break-PRF L -PRS.3.SG
The glass has broken. (Ondarru)
Like its English counterpart, the verb apurtu can appear in both transitive (115)
and intransitive frames (116). In the former, the ergative subject is obligatorily
doubled by a clitic (first singular -t in (115)). 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 60 below):
(117) Jon-ek basu-0/ apur-tu d -au -0.
/ (>rau)
Jon-ERG glass-ABS.SG break-PRF L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.3.SG
Jon has broken the glass. (Ondarru)
Thus, one might be tempted to argue that a default third person singular ergative
clitic is present in intransitive (116). However, auxiliaries with a third singular
ergative clitic and those without an ergative clitic are not identical. This can be
seen in (116) and (117): 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 Sect. 3.4 in Chap. 3, this is contextual
allomorphy of T sensitive to the presence or absence of an ergative clitic in the
auxiliary. Thus, the form of T in (116) signals the absence of an ergative clitic,
while the form of T in (117) 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 (116), the form of the auxiliary should be identical to (117), which is not the case.
Additional evidence for the presence of an ergative clitic, even when realized as
0,
/ is signaled elsewhere in the auxiliary. In particular, it may have an effect on the
realization of a third person dative clitic (Sect. 3.3.2 in Chap. 3):
(118) Ni-k Jon-ei ardau-0/ emo-0/
I-ERG Jon-DAT wine-ABS.SG give-PRF
I have given wine to Jon. (Ondarru)
(119) Miren-ek Jon-ei ardau-0/ emo-0/
Miren-ERG Jon-DAT wine-ABS.SG give-PRF
d -o -tz -0.
/ (>tza)
Miren has given wine to Jon. (Ondarru)
(120) 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)
In the context of an ergative clitic, the third singular dative clitic exponent is tz
(118), even if the ergative clitic is third singular and hence realized as 0/ (119). In the
absence of an ergative clitic, the allomorph of the dative clitic is ko (120). 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.61
To summarize so far, lack of agreement results in insertion of unmarked -feature
values, 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 the latter differs in important ways from ours. The most
important difference has to do with the identity of the first slot in auxiliaries. In our
analysis, it is an absolutive clitic:
61 In the Lekeitio and Zamudio counterparts of Ondarru (119), 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 Sect. 3.3.2 in Chap. 3).
If a default third singular ergative clitic were present in (120), the expected form of this auxiliary
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 (120) are dx-a-ko (Lekeitio) and d-a-ko (Zamudio),
not *dx/d-a-tz-o. Even if one tried to argue that the final -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.

Comp
On the other hand, in Premingers account, this first 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 in part on unergative predicates like the
following (repeated from (110)):
(122) Umi-k amen baltziu-an ei-txen
child-ERG.PL here dance-IN.SG do-IMP
d -au -0/ -e. (>dabe)
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . E .3 - CL . E . PL
Children dance here. (Ondarru)
The difference between the two analyses has to do with the first 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 (117). Since (122) lacks an absolutive argument, and
d- (in Premingers account) is the realization of third singular 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 (122). This is the realization of third singular
agreement (see e.g. (117)), so its presence in the absence of an absolutive argument
in (122) provides evidence that this auxiliary has default third singular agreement.
In our analysis, the first slot in the auxiliary is typically filled by an absolutive
clitic (not agreement). However, as discussed in Sect. 2.2.1 and reflected in our
glosses in (122) 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 (Chap. 5). Indeed, given our analysis of
cliticization and PCC effects in Sect. 2.2, 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 (122) 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 Chaps. 5 and 6 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.
An anonymous reviewer has brought to our attention certain predicates that
provide apparent counterexamples to the generalization that there is no insertion
of default clitics:
(123) Expletive ergative clitic with emon seem

Emo-ten d -au -/0/
seem-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.3.SG
Miren-0/ etorr-iko d -a -la. (>rala)
Miren-ABS come-FUT L -PRS.3.SG -CDECL
It seems Miren will come. (Ondarru)
(124) Expletive ergative and dative clitics with bardin same
Bardi d -o -tz -/0/ (>otza)
same L -PRS.3.SG -CL.D.3.SG -CL.E.3.SG
selanik e-txen d -o -gu -n. (>douen)
how do-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.1.PL -CINT
It doesnt matter how we do it. (Ondarru)
In both sentences, the auxiliary contains a third singular ergative clitic -0/ that does
not crossreference an argument in the sentence.62 In addition, the auxiliary in (124)
includes a third singular dative clitic in the absence of a corresponding dative
argument. Weather predicates also trigger ergative Cliticization without an apparent
ergative argument:
(125) Expletive ergative clitic with weather predicates
baye arrasti-en euri-0/ i-ngo d -au -/0/ (>deu)
but afternoon-IN.SG rain-ABS do-FUT L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.3.SG
but its going to rain in the afternoon (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:387)
Given the evidence reviewed above, these cannot be examples of default ergative
and dative Cliticization. Rather, these nonargumental clitics are lexically specified,
in the sense that they seem to fulfill requirements imposed by specific predicates. In
particular, we assume that they double ergative and dative covert expletive pronouns
that meet selectional restrictions of these predicates. Evidence that this is the case
for emon seem comes from the fact that it is also compatible with an ergative clitic
that doubles an argument63:
(126) Argumental ergative clitic with emon seem
a. Miren-ek emo-ten d -au -/0/
Miren-ERG seem-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.3.SG
etorr-iko d -a -la. (>rala)
come-FUT L -PRS.3.SG -CDECL
Miren looks like she will come. (Ondarru)
62 Although the ergative clitic is phonologically null, its presence is diagnosed by allomorphy of T:
both -au- in (123) and -o- in (124) are allomorphs required in the context of an ergative clitic. If
the latter were not present, T would be realized as -a- in both sentences. Similarly, the allomorph
-tz of the dative clitic in (124) signals the presence of an ergative clitic.
63 See Artiagoitia 2001 for evidence that (126a) involves raising to ergative case position from an
embedded finite clause.

2.6 Complementizers Within the Auxiliary Complex 103
b. Miren-ek posik emo-ten d -au /

-/00.
Miren-ERG happy seem-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.3.SG
Miren seems happy. (Ondarru)
Similarly, the dative clitic with bardin same can double an experiencer argument:
(127) Argumental dative clitic with bardin same
Ni-ri bardi d -o -t -/0/ (>osta)
me-DAT same L -PRS.3.SG -CL.D.1.SG -CL.E.3.SG
selanik e-txen d -o -gu -n. (>douen)
how do-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.1.PL -CINT
It doesnt matter to me how we do it. (Ondarru)
It therefore seems that the ergative clitic in (123) and the dative clitic in (124) double
expletives that are needed to satisfy the (syntactic) selectional requirements of the
predicates. Although the ergative clitic present in sentences with bardin same
and with weather verbs can never double an argument, the fact that these are also
construction-specific leads us to the conclusion that they must also be doubling
expletive elements required by these predicates. In summary, these apparent default
clitics are in fact clitics in a doubling relationship with expletives, and do not
constitute counterexamples to the claim that there is no default Cliticization in
Basque.
To conclude, failure of agreement results in insertion of unmarked feature values
on the Agree Probe, but failure of Cliticization does not result in attachment of an
unmarked pronominal clitic on the clitic host. Premingers conclusions 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 final exponent in finite auxiliaries is the complementizer. T, together with

whichever clitic may be adjoined to it, undergoes Head Movement to C. Two other
morphemes are adjoined to C: an ergative clitic, when present (Sect. 2.2.2), and
complementizer agreement (Sect. 2.4.3). Given the algorithm in (27) (Sect. 2.2.2),
the result is that C is linearized at the end of the auxiliary, as desired.64
In matrix present tense auxiliaries, C is not overt. In other contexts, it is realized
as -la or -n.65 The C exponent -la is found in embedded declarative complement
clauses:
64 For 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).
65 Both forms have allomorphs with an epenthetic vowel. See Sect. 3.6.1 in Chap. 3.
(128) Pentza-ten d -o -t bidxar etorr-iko

think-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.1.SG tomorrow come-FUT
d -a -la.
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 clauses66 :
(129) Es d -a -i -tx nois alla-ko
not L -PRS.3.SG -know -CL.E.1.SG when arrive-FUT
d -i -s -n (>disen).
L - PRS .3. PL -3. PL - CINT
I dont know when theyll arrive. (Ondarru)
(130) txakurr-a ekarr-i d -au -0/ -n (>daben)
dog-ABS.SG bring-PRF L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.3.SG -CREL
mutill-a.
boy-ABS.SG
the boy who has brought the dog. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:190)
Matrix past tense auxiliaries also have an overt complementizer exponent -n:
(131) Gorka-k arpei-dxa garbi-ttu
Gorka-ERG face-ABS.SG wash-PRF
0/ -eu -n (>eban).
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 accentual properties, discussed in de Rijk (1972:2023) and Hualde et al.
(1994:185).
In the remainder of this section, we provide justification for this description of
the complementizer morphemes present in Basque finite verbs, along with further
descriptive details. Although we provide sufficient evidence for considering these
exponents as the realization of C, we do not offer a complete account of Vocabulary
Insertion in C, since that would depend on a more formal examination of the features
involved in Basque complementizers, a task that we leave for future work.
There are two potentially problematic aspects of Basque C in our descrip-
tion above. First, 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
66 Both -la and -n also surface in certain adjunct clauses, in some cases with the help of different
inflectional affixes or postpositions (Artiagoitia 2003a:711722).
(Borsley et al. 2007:3437) have overt complementizers in matrix clauses, includ-

ing affirmative sentences. Second, we claim that complementizers are specified 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):
(132) a. an fear a labhrann t leis
the man CREL.NPST speak.PRS you with.him
the man that you speak to
b. an fear ar labhair t leis
the man CREL.PST speak.PST you with.him
the man that you spoke to (Irish, Chung and McCloskey 1987:218)
(133) a. An gcuireann t isteach ar phostanna?
CINT. NPST put.PRS you in on jobs
Do you apply for jobs?
b. Ar chuir t isteach ar phostanna?
CINT. PST put. PST you in on jobs
Did you apply for jobs? (Irish, Chung and McCloskey 1987:218)
Example (132) illustrates tense-marking in (embedded) declarative C, and (133) in
(matrix) interrogative C. In both cases, there is a specific form for the past tense (ar)
that contrasts with its nonpast tense counterpart (a, an). Crucially, tense-marking in
C co-occurs with tense morphology in the finite verb, as shown by the contrast in
form between the verbal forms in (a) and (b) in both paradigms above. Under the
assumption that the latter fact is the consequence of T being part of the finite verbal
complex, Irish clearly illustrates the need for grammars in which tense features are
both in T and C.
Consider the Basque data in this light. In the Lekeitio example (131), the final -n
in the finite auxiliary marks past tense, which contrasts with its absence in the matrix
present tense auxiliary dot in (128). Furthermore, tense-marking is also visible in
the contrast in the form of the respective roots: past tense -eu- in (131) and present
tense -o- in (128). We can make sense of this mutiple tense-marking in Basque by
drawing a parallel with Irish: both T (the root of finite auxiliaries) and C are specified
for matching tense features in Basque.67 The main syntactic difference between the
two languages in this area is that while T and C form part of the same complex
syntactic head (via Head Movement) in Basque, they do not in Irish.
This analysis of the Basque tense-related morphemes and exponents discussed
above contrasts with what can be considered the standard view in the generative
literature. The sensitivity of the auxiliary-final exponent -n to tense features has
led several authors to claim that it is the realization of T (Laka 1993a; Albizu and
Eguren 2000; Fernndez and Albizu 2000; Albizu 2002; Rezac 2006, 2008c). We do
67 It is possible that tense features in C are due to the same postsyntactic concord
process that copies
-features from T in C (Sect. 2.4.3). We leave a detailed account of this particular relation between
T and C for future work.
not adopt this analysis of this exponent for several reasons. As should be clear
from our discussion in different parts of this chapter, this claim is not compatible
with our analysis, where T is identified with the traditional root of the auxiliary. In
addition, although the claim that past tense -n is the realization of T is made clear in
these works, the relation between root material and tense features that is evident in
examples such as the ones discussed above is left unexplained. For instance, Albizu
(2002:5) and Rezac (2006:Chap. 1, 38, Chap. 2, 2430) draw a parallel between this
root material and theme vowels or class markers in Romance languages, and its
dependence on tense features (which is not a matter of debate) is accounted for in a
very indirect way.68 On the other hand, our proposal is based on the claim that T and
C are specified for matching tense features. This claim provides a straightforward
account of the sensitivity of two separate positions of exponence to tense, and finds
support in the Irish data discussed above.
Direct evidence that past tense -n, as opposed to root exponents, is the realization
of C comes from the fact that this auxiliary-final exponent is in complementary
distribution with other complementizers in embedded clauses69 :
(134) Miren-ek es
Miren-ERG not
g -aitu -0/ -s -n (>gaitxusen) esa-n
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.
(135) Lor-ak nor-i emo-ngo
flower- 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
68 Specifically, Albizu and Rezac, in line with traditional work on Basque morphology, decompose
the auxiliary root into several morphemes, one of which is a theme vowel/class marker whose real-
ization is (in part) dependent on tense. See Sect. 3.5 in Chap. 3 for criticism of this decompositional
view of the root.
69 Many past tense auxiliaries are exceptions to this for some of our Ondarru informants. In
particular, past tense -n often cooccurs with -la in embedded declaratives. For instance, the
counterpart of Lekeitio s-a-la in (134) is s-a-n-la (>sanela) for these Ondarru speakers. On the
other hand, past tense -n never cooccurs with embedded -n, and only a single n surfaces. We
speculate that this is due to Fission of C in embedded declarative contexts in the grammars
of these speakers. A similar issues arises in Irish, where past tense complementizers can often
be decomposed into an exponent indicating clause type and a past tense exponent -r (e.g. past
interrogative ar vs. nonpast interrogative an in (133); see Chung and McCloskey 1987:218220 for
discussion). A detailed analysis of the Ondarru pattern would depend on a more formal examination
of Vocabulary Insertion in Basque complementizers, a task that we do not undertake in this book.
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 flowers to.
The auxiliary in the embedded clause in (134) is s-a-la, and its matrix clause
counterpart is s-a-n. The matrix counterpart of embedded 0-eu-tz-s-n
/ in (135)
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 Sect. 3.6.1 in Chap. 3, where it is shown that it
displays allomorphy patterns exclusive to members of this category.70
As a final 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.71
Of particular interest here is conditional ba which appears to the immediate left of
finite verbs:
(136) 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 has died.
Furthermore, it is not in complementary distribution with past tense -n, as illustrated
in this example. Given these syntactic properties, it is safe to assume that ba- is not
a complementizer.
70 An anonymous reviewer notes a potential argument against identifying past tense -n with the
complementizer position based on the distribution of allocutive clitics (Sect. 1.4.5 in Chap. 1,
Sect. 5.6.3 in Chap. 5): the latter are only possible in matrix clauses (see Oyharabal 1993:106
108 for illustration). Since, as shown above, past tense -n is limited to matrix clauses, it is
compatible with allocutive clitics. On the other hand, -la and interrogative/relative -n only surface
in embedded clauses, which makes them incompatible with allocutive clitics. The reviewer takes
this distributional fact as evidence that past tense -n is not a complementizer. This seems to assume
that the distribution of allocutives depends directly on the form of C: they are banned in contexts
where C is realized as -la or interrogative/relative -n. We disagree with this interpretation of the
facts. What the data show is that both the form of C and the distribution of allocutive clitics are
sensitive to morphosyntactic properties of C. This seems more plausible to us than an analysis that
ties the distribution of allocutives directly to the morphophonological form of C. On the basis of
facts like these, Oyharabal 1993 proposes an analysis in which the distribution of allocutives is
sensitive to abstract properties of C, and explicitly rejects an analysis based on the surface form of
finite verbs. See Sect. 5.6.3 in Chap. 5 for a reinterpretation of Oyharabals account based on our
analysis of finite verbs.
71 We concentrate here only on conditional ba. See Artiagoitia (2003a:723724, 727736) for other
complementizer-like elements in Basque.

On the other hand, there are syntactic grounds to classify ba- under the category
of modal particlesa 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; see Sect. 5.7.3 in Chap. 5). The following is a relevant
example:
(137) 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. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:151)
As shown in Ortiz de Urbina (2003b:319320), ba 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 finite auxiliary, as 0,/ -n or -la. Several features are responsible for the
realization of this position, including matrix vs. embedded position, force (declar-
ative/interrogative), finiteness, and tense. Although the matrix past tense comple-
mentizer -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 significantly
from true complementizers.
2.7 Conclusion: Cliticization vs. Agreement
In most cases, Basque auxiliaries are decomposed into the following morphemes:
Abs clitic1 Tense/Agreement2 Dat clitic3 Erg clitic4
Comp agreement5 Comp6
The particular decomposition we have proposed differs from that found elsewhere
in the Basque literature, and this chapter provides initial arguments for this view. In
particular, our analysis can be summarized as follows:
(139) Cliticization
Morphemes 1, 3 and 4 are pronominal clitics, moved to T and C from their
base-generated position within vP.
(140) 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 -features from T.
(141) T-to-C movement.
2.7 Conclusion: Cliticization vs. Agreement 109
The split between Cliticization and agreement is the most basic ingredient in our
explanation of the multiple exponence problem in Basque finite verbs. The distinc-
tion between the two phenomena is reflected in several properties of the Basque
auxiliary. The first one, discussed in Sect. 2.5, 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.
The second difference between agreement and Cliticization has to do with sen-
tences where two arguments trigger the relevant operation. In the case of agreement,
T agrees with both dative and absolutive arguments (Sects. 2.4.12.4.3), 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 (Sects. 2.3.1 and 2.3.2). In partic-
ular, the Condition on Clitic Hosts prevents Cliticization of both absolutive and da-
tive clitics to T, which in some cases can trigger Cliticization of the absolutive to C.
We have explained a number of properties of Basque auxiliaries and their
microvariation by pursuing a division of labor between the syntactic and post-
syntactic mechanisms responsible for agreement and Cliticization. In the next
chapter, we further strengthen this argument by providing detailed analysis 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 finite auxiliaries. In particular, the claim that auxiliaries
are composed of both pronominal clitics and agreement plays a crucial role in our
analysis, and, we believe, is central to a proper understanding of the syntax and
morphology of verbal inflection in Basque, including the phenomenon of multiple
exponence. The present 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 specific dialects, we fulfill
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 sufficiently 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 sufficiently different to provide empirical depth
to our analysis of dialectal variation, but they are also similar enough to test specific
differences in their grammars.
1 The realization of C and complementizer agreement are relatively straightforward, and were dealt
with in Sects. 2.6 and 2.4.3 in Chap. 2, respectively.

112 3 The Morphophonology of Basque Finite Auxiliaries
This chapter is organized as follows. We begin in Sect. 3.2 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. This section also includes some discussion of distinctions among
operations (including Vocabulary Insertion) that are used in this book to express
dependencies between morphemes. Section 3.3 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 Chap. 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 finite auxiliaries is the realization of T (tense/agreement), which is the focus of
Sect. 3.4. 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 Sect. 2.4.2 in Chap. 2.
As we show there, the intricate patterns of exponence in these auxiliaries fall out
naturally from the syntax proposed in Chap. 2 and our specific implementation of
Vocabulary Insertion. Section 3.5 compares previous accounts of the realization
of auxiliaries with the present analysis, with special reference to the complex
patterns of syncretism and contextual allomorphy found in tense/agreement. The
final piece of our account of the realization of auxiliaries is presented in Sect. 3.6,
which provides discussion of all the relevant phonological processes that map
the underlying representations provided by VI to the surface forms given in
Appendix A, as well as those that mainly apply across word boundaries. The chapter
concludes with a summary of the main results in Sect. 3.7.
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
PE MORPH / CT XT
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 specification
(MFS) is matched by MORPH and whose context is matched by CT XT . In this
particular context, match denotes a type of subset relation: a feature specification
matches another feature specification if the former is a subset of the latter. In the case
of the contextual restriction CT XT this matching relation is somewhat different, as
2 Unless otherwise noted, we keep this part of entries informal, and specify PE with the standard-
ized orthography used in examples throughout this book.
3.2 Vocabulary Insertion 113
discussed below. For any entry with the form in (1), we refer to MORPH as its MFS,
and to CT XT 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. A fully explicit formulation of the entry
in (20c) (Sect. 3.3.2 below) is the following:
(2) s [category: D, +participant, author]/ [category: T]
This represents 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 Sect. 3.3.2 will make it clear that this
is an entry for clitics, we often omit the category feature altogether from its MFS,
resulting in our briefer formulation in (20c), shown here:
(4) s [+participant, author]/ T

However, the value of the category feature in the contextual restriction (T) cannot
be omitted from the actual representations, since this would result in crucial loss
of information. We follow these 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 present three specific proposals about Vocabulary Insertion. In
Sect. 3.2.1, we claim that contextual restrictions on vocabulary entries are based on
linear adjacency. This property of Vocabulary Insertion plays an important role in
distinguishing it from other operations which also establish dependencies between
different parts of the auxiliary M-word. Section 3.2.2 discusses three 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 in the
contextual restriction of vocabulary entries takes precedence over other feature
specifications 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. Third, in cases where subset relations
do not result in a single exponent, markedness is taken into account. These three
components of the proposal represent particular analytical choices allowed by the
DM framework, and are crucial in accounting for several morphological properties
of Basque finite auxiliaries.
3.2.1 Contextual Restrictions and Linear Adjacency
In presenting the architecture of the grammar in Chap. 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 reflected in our formalization of vocabulary entries, where the contextual
restriction has the general form X Y . Following Embick (2010), 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 the terminal node in this way in terms of 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 Specifically, 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 circumstances linear adjacency may coincide 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 restrictions in vocabulary entries is needed. For instance,
several entries for T have the contextual restriction [Ergative, S], which specifies
that the entry is eligible for insertion in terminal nodes left-adjacent to an ergative
clitic containing the feature set S (Sect. 3.4). Although T and the ergative clitic are
linearly adjacent in some auxiliaries, they are never sisters:
(5) Linearized structure of a transitive auxiliary with a clitic adjoined to the left
of T
C
T C
ClAbs T ClErg C
Agr C
3 Weadopt the standard convention of not specifying the context if both X and Y are null.
4 Theremay be additional locality constraints on VI, such as those proposed in Bobaljik (2000),
Adger et al. (2003) and Embick (2010). We abstract away from these in this work.
Nevertheless, an entry with the contextual restriction [Ergative, S] is eligible for

insertion in T in this context, as allowed 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 C
T ClDat ClErg C
Agr C
In this case, the dative clitic adjoined to the right of T blocks the insertion of an entry
with the contextual restriction [Ergative, S]. Crucially, the structural relation
between T and the ergative clitic is identical in (5) and (6). The blocking mechanism
preventing insertion of the exponent in the latter is due to a difference in linear, not
structural, relations.
The preceding remarks pave the way for a more general discussion about the
mechanisms employed to express dependencies between various morphemes within
the auxiliary M-word complex. As noted immediately above, contextual specifica-
tions in Vocabulary Insertion are specifically restricted to linear adjacency. No such
restrictions hold (or are even stateable) for Agree-Link and Agree-Copy, discussed
in Chap. 2, as these operations occur, by hypothesis, prior to Linearization, and
show no sensitivity to linear adjacency between Probe and Goal. Similarly, no
such restrictions are at play in the process of Have-Insertion (Sect. 3.4.1 in this
chapter), which conditions the voice-sensitive allomorphy of the auxiliary root
in the presence of an ergative clitic on C, which need not be adjacent to T (if, say,
a dative intervenes). Finally, no such adjacency restrictions hold in the contextual
specification of Impoverishment rules, detailed within Chap. 4, which may effect
feature-deletion within the context of particular morphemes within the same M-
word.
In fact, given a particular dependency relation between the form of two mor-
phemes, there are a number of properties that can be used in order to triangulate
among the grammatical mechanisms posited and determine which is ultimately
responsible for it. Take for example the form of the auxiliary root (T), which
is sensitive to the features of the absolutive argument, by hypothesis due to the
operation of Agree-Link. Several properties of this dependency of T on absolutive
-features show that it is not determined by Vocabulary Insertion in terms of
contextual restrictions imposed by the absolutive clitic. This clitic may undergo
Fission, as discussed in Sect. 3.3.4 below, in which case its person and number
features will be distributed on two sides of the auxiliary rootand moreover, the
plural clitic may undergo further Metathesis to the right (see Sect. 5.3 in Chap. 5).
The final linear position of the clitic within the auxiliary has no effect on the
realization of agreement in T, because this relation has occurred prior to any
postsyntactic displacement, at a point during which linear position was irrelevant
(and not even present) in the representation. In fact, there are cases of agreement
which demonstrably do not involve adjacency between the auxiliary root and the
absolutive clitic at all, namely those in which T shows allomorphs conditioned by
third person absolutive features, for which there simply is no clitic to its left (see
Sects. 2.2.1 and 2.4.1 in Chap. 2).
Vocabulary Insertion is thus distinct from other operations such as Agree
and Have-Insertion in that it is the only operation in the grammar (apart from
phonological rules) stating a potential dependency between morphemes in order
to determine form with the potential to refer and restrict such dependencies to linear
adjacency. Vocabulary Insertion is also distinct from Fission operations, the topic of
Sect. 3.3.4 below, and from Impoverishment and Obliteration operations, the topic
of Chap. 4. In particular, Plural Fission in Basque has the effect of generating a
new position-of-exponence for a plural clitic, specifically in the case of features
that cannot be co-exponed in the same terminal node, such as [singular] and
[author]. Vocabulary Insertion is arguably not responsible for such an operation
(e.g. the presence or absence of a plural clitic depending on the person features of
its corresponding argument) because allomorphy alone could not guarantee that the
plural clitic occurs exactly when plurality is not already expressed together with the
person clitic, whereas Fission ensures this complementary distribution of number
marking. Turning to Impoverishment operations, Vocabulary Insertion is distinct
from these because the former can be nonlocal in their context (e.g. the presence
of an ergative clitic can induce deletion of a nonadjacent absolutive clitic, as shown
in Sect. 4.6 in Chap. 4), and moreover because Vocabulary Insertion cannot express
metasyncretisms (such as the fact that first singular clitics in the Basque varieties
under study systematically pattern as lacking the [+participant] feature across a
wide variety of phonological forms, as discussed in Sect. 4.3.2 in Chap. 4); see
Harley (2008) for additional discussion of this point.
In sum, we view Vocabulary Insertion as a specific mechanism for expressing
allomorphy, especially when it is sensitive to linear adjacency. Within the entire
Spellout process, it is generally the case that the further one moves down the
computation (i.e. the later in the derivation one looks), the more dialect-particular
idiosyncrasy piles up. Recurrent generalizations about syncretism and the com-
plementary distribution of featural expression are therefore localized in operations
earlier than Vocabulary Insertion.
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) The 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 enables one to account for syncretic phenomena. The entry that wins this
competition is the most specific one. What most specific means depends on
particular implementations, resulting in different predictions about competition
between vocabulary entries. A standard interpretation is as follows:
(8) Competition for Vocabulary Insertion at terminal node T N:5
a. If more than one entry is selected by (7), select the entry (or entries)
whose MFS is not a proper subset of the MFS in any other entry in (7).
b. If (8a) results in more than one entry with identical morphosyntactic
feature specifications, select the entry (or entries) among these 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 first 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 neu-
tralization, in which category-specificity in the contextual restriction of vocabulary
entries is given preference over specificity in their MFS.
The procedure in (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. The MFS of T N is [CT N , F1 , F2 , F3 ].
b. The context of T N is [CX , G1 , G2 , G3 ] [CY , H1 , H2 , H3 ]
5 The procedure in (8) typically selects a single entry. See below for cases where more than one
entry is selected.
The first case is probably the most commonly found:

(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
specific, PE1 is selected for insertion in T N. This exponent wins the competition
even if its context is not specified as G1 , since the MFS takes precedence over the
contextual restriction in (8). A particularly common subcase is where the contextual
restriction is null in both entries.
The second type of scenario is provided by cases where the contextual restriction
is distinct:
(12) Case 2: competing entries with the same MFS and different contextual
restrictions
a. PE1 [CT N , F1 , F2 , F3 ] / [CX , G1 ] CY
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 specific 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 were
specified for additional noncategorial features, since category-specificity overrides
specificity for other features.
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 context is neutralized in a different context. Consider the following abstract
case:
(13) Case 3: 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 specific than PE1 and PE2 , its contextual
restriction is more specific 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 specific pattern of neutralization in Basque
clitics. In most circumstances, 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 linear-based operations
discussed in detail in Chap. 5. In this position, all clitics surface in apparent
absolutive form: in the second singular, as s-. In other words, case distinctions
that are realized overtly in the usual configuration are neutralized in the position
to the left of T. This constitutes a crucial instance of positional neutralization
that provides evidence for the hypothesis that category-specificity takes precedence
over specificity for other features in selecting entries for Vocabulary Insertion. The
effect that linear operations have on Vocabulary Insertion is discussed in detail in
Sect. 3.3.2.
Another theoretically relevant case of competition for Vocabulary Insertion is
provided by cases of multiple agreement. As discussed in Sect. 2.4 in Chap. 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 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 specificity of the MFS and the contextual restriction in the
vocabulary entries. We analyse auxiliaries of this type in Sect. 3.4.4.
A final feature of VI to discuss has to do with cases where the procedure in (8)
cannot choose among competing entries because none of them is more specific than
the other. Following Noyer (1992) and Harley (1994), we assume that competition is
decided by a markedness hierarchy. For the current purposes, it is sufficient 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 specified as [singular]
but contains no person features in its MFS. Specific cases of this type are discussed
in Sect. 3.4.4. Finally, we assume that in the absence of any vocabulary entry that
matches a particular terminal node, 0/ will be inserted.
3.3 Clitic Realization in the Morphophonology
In this book we have argued, contrary to a fair amount of existing literature, that the
set of apparent agreement prefixes and suffixes on the auxiliary in Basque are, in
fact, not the reflex 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 Sect. 3.3.1
with a summary of our account of the morphosyntactic processes whose output
is the input to VI in clitics, and Sects. 3.3.23.3.4 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 Sect. 3.3.5, and for some general comments on plural
marking in Basque auxiliaries in Sect. 3.3.6. 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 opera-
tions derive the basic template of finite auxiliaries:
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 finite auxiliary is the following:
(15) C
T C
(ClAbs/Dat ) T (ClErg ) C
In the postsyntactic component, Agree-Copy copies -feature values from the

Agree Goals to T (under certain conditions), and an agreement morpheme is
attached to C, which copies its -features from T:
3.3 Clitic Realization in the Morphophonology 121
(16) C
T C
(ClAbs/Dat ) T (ClErg ) C
Agr C
Given the Linearization rules given in the previous chapter, we derive the following
two possible orders:
(17) a. (ClAbs ) T (ClErg ) AgrC C
b. T (ClDat ) (ClErg ) AgrC C
The structure in (16), with the morpheme order specified in (17), is submitted to
Vocabulary Insertion. In the next subsection, we provide an account of its 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 identified 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, giving rise to positional neutralization, which in
turn provides evidence for our claim made in Sect. 3.2.2 that category-specificity
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 clitcs is not unique to
Basque. For example, subject proclitics and enclitics differ in form in some Northern
Italian languages, as shown below for Paduan:
(18) a. I- magna.
CL. SBJ.3. PL eat.PRS.3.PL
They eat.
b. Magne -li?
eat.PRS.3.PL -CL.SBJ.3.PL
Do they eat? (Paduan, Cardinaletti and Repetti 2008:535)
In these languages, subject clitics precede the finite verb in noninterrogative
sentences, but follow it in questions. As seen in these examples, this often correlates
Table 3.1 Basque pronominal clitics

Ergative Dative
Absolutivea Lekeitio Ondarru Zamudio Lekeitio Ondarru Zamudio
1Sg n- -t/-da -t/-da -t/-da -t/-da -t -t
1Pl g- -gu -gu -u -ku -ku -ku
2Sg s- -su -su -su -tzu -tzu -tzu
2Pl s-. . . -e -su-e -su-e -su-e -tzu-e -tzu-e -tzu-e
3Sg -0/-o
/ -0/ -0/-o
/ -ko/-tz -ko/-tz -ko/-tz
3Pl -0-e/-o-e
/ -0-e
/ -0-e/-o-e
/ -ko-e/-tz-e -ko-e/-tz-e -ko-e/-tz-e
a Absolutive forms are identical in Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio
with a difference in the form of the clitic (see Poletto 2000:5155; Cardinaletti and
Repetti 2008 and references cited there). The same is true for third person accusative
(and dative) clitics in some varieties of Valencian Catalan (Todol 1992)6:
(19) a. Troba -lo.
find.IMPR.2.SG -CL.ACC.3.SG.M
Find it. (Valencian Catalan, Todol 1992:142)
b. El duc.
CL. ACC .3. SG . M carry. PRS .1. SG
I carry it. (Valencian Catalan, Todol 1992:144)
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 Appendix A).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 following8:
(20) Vocabulary entries for second person clitics
a. tzu [+peripheral, +motion, +participant, author] Dat
b. su [peripheral, +motion, +participant, author] Erg
c. s [+participant, author]/ T Abs
6 Both Cardinaletti and Repetti (2008) and Todol (1992) argue that most of the surface differences
between proclitics and enclitics in the varieties they study are due to phonological rules. However,
both also admit that some of the differences are not phonological. The forms presented in (19)
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 (19a) (Todol 1992:142143).
7 The cells corresponding to third person absolutive clitics are empty, since Basque has no clitics
with these features. See Sect. 3.3.5.

8 See also Sects. 4.6 and 4.7 in Chap. 4 for several clitic Impoverishment rules not discussed here.
(21) Vocabulary entries for first plural clitics

a. ku [+peripheral, +motion, +participant, +author] Dat
b. gu hRRRR
RRRR
Lekeitio/Ondarru Erg
(
llll5 [peripheral, +motion, +part, +author]
l
lZamudio
u ull
c. g [+participant, +author]/ T Abs
(22) Vocabulary entries for first singular clitics
a. fff2 [+motion, +author, +singular]/ [+M] Dat/Erg
rfffLekeitio
o Ondarru / [periph, +motion, +author, +sing]/
da kV [+M] Erg
VV
ZamudioVVV+
[periph, +motion, +author, +sing]/
[+periph, +motion, part, author, +sing] [+M] Erg
b. t [+motion, +author, +singular] Dat/Erg
c. n [+author, +singular]/ T Abs
(23) Vocabulary entries for third person clitics
a. tz [+peripheral, +motion, part, author]/ [+have] Dat
b. ko [+peripheral, +motion, participant, author] Dat
c. Only in Lekeitio and Zamudio:
o [peripheral, +motion, participant, author]/
[+periph, +motion, part, author, +singular] Erg
Consider first the entries for second person clitics (20). The exponents -tzu (20a) and
-su (20b) are specified for case features, and accordingly realize dative and ergative
clitics, respectively. The following example illustrates ergative enclitic -su:
(24) Peskeu-en bat-0/ ya-n d -o -su ela?
fish-GEN a-ABS eat-PRF L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.2.SG or
You ate some type of fish, right? (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:53)
On the other hand, s- (20c) is not specified for case, but its contextual restriction
( T) identifies it as the realization of an absolutive clitic.
The fact that the entry for s- (and entries for absolutive clitics in general) is
underspecified 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 Sect. 3.2.2. Although ergative clitics are typically realized as enclitics
following T, as in (24), they undergo Ergative Metathesis to a position left-adjacent
to T under certain conditions discussed in Chap. 5. This is illustrated in the following
example:
(25) Len ark-atan urun-e euki-te s -endu -n.
before chest- IN.PL flour-ABS.SG have-IMP CL.E.2.SG -PST.3.SG -CPST
You used to keep flour in chests. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:78)
Table 3.2 Positional neutralization in metathesized ergative cliticsa

First singular First plural Second singular Second plural
n-eu-n g-endu-n s-endu-n s-endu-e-n
a Past tense auxiliaries with third singular agreement and no dative
clitic
Due to Ergative Metathesis, the second singular ergative clitic precedes T in this
example. Both -su (20b) and s- (20c) are eligible for insertion in this morpheme.
The former is specified as ergative, and thus has a richer MFS than the latter, which
is unspecified 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 selects s-, since under this proposal, category-specificity is
privileged over specificity for other features. As guaranteed by our implementation
of Vocabulary Insertion, when a clitic is left-adjacent to T, the contrast between
ergative and absolutive is neutralized. Other examples of auxiliaries with metathe-
sized ergative clitics illustrating this case of positional neutralization are given in
Table 3.2 (and see Tables A.6A.8 in Appendix A for full paradigms).9
The vocabulary entries for first person plural are organized in a similar way: g-
(21c) is left-adjacent to T (absolutive, or ergative in cases of Metathesis, as shown in
Table 3.2), -ku (21a) is dative, and -(g)u (21b) is ergative. Note that these entries are
not specified for number, which appears to make them compatible with first singular
clitics. The following Impoverishment rule prevents this10 :
(26) First Singular Clitic Impoverishment
a. SD: a clitic Cl specified as [+participant, +author, +singular]
b. SC: delete [+participant] in Cl
This rule deletes [+participant] in first singular clitics, and thus prevents insertion
of first plural entries (21). Further evidence for the necessity of this Impoverishment
rule in Biscayan Basque is given in Sects. 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 below and in Sects. 4.6
and 4.7 in Chap. 4, where it is shown that auxiliaries with first singular clitics have
several properties that set them apart from auxiliaries with other participant clitics.
The vocabulary entries for first singular clitics display a more complex pattern of
allomorphy. As in previous cases, n- (22c) 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 (22b) is underspecified for case and thus
compatible with either dative or ergative clitics. However, it is blocked by -da (22a)
before a complementizer agreement morpheme specified as [+M] (Sect. 2.4.3 in
9 Metathesis can also affect dative clitics in dialects other than the ones studied in detail here.
They display positional neutralization, too, as expected. Relevant examples are given Sect. 5.6 in
Chap. 5.
10 In Impoverishment rules, we abbreviate structural description as SD and structural change
as SC.
Table 3.3 First singular clitic exponents

Ergative Dative Absolutive
-da before [+M] in Lekeitio/Ondarru -da before [+M] in Lekeitio n-
-da between 3.Sg dative clitic and [+M] in Zamudio -t elsewhere
-t elsewhere
Chap. 2). The restrictions imposed on these entries are summarized in Table 3.3,
which provides a full description of the different forms of first singular clitics in the
three varieties.11
As discussed in Sect. 2.4.2 in Chap. 2, the case features in first 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 by the time VI occurs.12
There is a certain amount of allomorphy in third person clitics (23) as well.
Allomorph -tz (23a) of the dative clitic is restricted to contexts where it is right-
adjacent to a T node specified as [+have], which, as shown in Sect. 3.4.1 below, is
inserted in this node in the context of an ergative clitic. Thus, default third person
dative -ko (23b) is restricted to auxiliaries without an ergative clitic. Allomorphy
in third ergative clitics is sensitive to the features of a preceding dative clitic: the
singular is -o (23c) if an adjacent dative clitic is third singular in Lekeitio and
Zamudio. Elsewhere, third ergative is realized as 0. / Note that there are no entries for
third person absolutive clitics, as they are not generated, and hence do not provide a
node for Vocabulary Insertion, for reasons discussed in Sect. 3.3.5.
The analysis offered above assumes that the segment o at the right edge of
Lekeitio and Zamudio ditransitive auxiliaries such as the following is part of the
third person ergative clitic:
(27) -o as an ergative clitic
Eusi-0/ i-ten d -o -tz -o (>tzo) baye.
bark-ABS do-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.D.3.SG -CL.E.3.SG but
It barks at him, though. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:303)
11 Note that there is some variation in the distribution of -da, as reflected in (22a) 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. Due to the incomplete past tense
monotransitive paradigm provided in Gaminde (2000:373374), some forms in Table A.6 are from
de Yrizar (1992b:Vol. 1, 595, 617620), including some with a first singular ergative clitic whose
form is not consistent with the description in Table 3.3. These forms seem to be from speakers with
the wider distribution for -da noted above.
12 This contrasts with other cases of bona fide metathesized dative clitics that illustrate positional
neutralization. See Sect. 5.6 in Chap. 5.

However, as pointed out by a reviewer, standard descriptions of Biscayan

typically parse o as part of the preceding third person dative clitic (e.g. de Azkue
1925:561563):
(28) Alternative parse for o in (27)
d -o -tzo -0/
Such a parse would involve the following list of entries for third person clitics,
which should be compared with our proposal in (23) (the only difference is -o (23c)
vs. -tzo (29a)):
(29) Alternative vocabulary entries for third person clitics
a. Only in Lekeitio and Zamudio:
tzo [+peripheral, +motion, participant, author]/
[peripheral, +motion, participant, author] Dat
b. tz [+peripheral, +motion, part, author]/ [+have] Dat
c. ko [+peripheral, +motion, participant, author] Dat
Both analyses capture the relevant facts in these varieties: o only appears in
auxiliaries containing both a third person dative clitic and a third person ergative
clitic.
The main reason for assuming the alternative in (29), with o as part of the
dative clitic, is diachronic: this vowel is etymologically related to the third dative
allomorph -ko (23b)/(29c), and to the non-Biscayan third dative clitic -o (see
Sect. 3.3.3). Synchronically, Biscayan varieties can be classified into three groups
according to the distribution of this segment (see Gaminde 1984:Vol. 1, 3562 for
relevant auxiliary forms).13 The overwhelming majority of towns in this dialectal
area (82 out of 96) belong in the same group as Lekeitio and Zamudio: o appears
only in auxiliaries with both a third person dative clitic and a third person ergative
clitic. Second, in a single town, o surfaces in all auxiliaries with third person dative
clitics (Ispaster; referred to as Izpazter in Gaminde (1984:Vol. 1, 59)). Third, in a
few others (13 out of 96), such as Ondarru, this o is altogether absent.
It seems clear that the simplest analysis of Ispaster is one where o is part of a third
person dative clitic exponent -tzo, and that it is simply absent from the third group
of varieties mentioned above. However, both (23) (with an ergative -o allomorph)
and (29) (with a dative -tzo allomorph) work equally well for the majority group
that includes Lekeitio and Zamudio, since in these varieties o has a very restricted
distribution (auxiliaries with both third dative and third ergative clitics). We are thus
not aware of any synchronic argument that would tip the balance one way or the
other, and will stick to the entries proposed in (23) for convenience.
13 We exclude from this classification varieties from the province of Guipuscoa whose third person
dative clitic in ditransitives is simply -o (not -tzo or -tz). Although Gaminde (1984) groups these
as part of the Biscayan dialect, their ditransitive auxiliaries differ substantially from the typical
Biscayan pattern.
Table 3.4 Dative and

Ondarru Batua/Etxarri-Aranatz
ergative clitics in Ondarru,
Batua, and Etxarri-Aranatza Dative Ergative Dative Ergative
First singular -sta -t -t -t
First plural -sku -u -(g)u -(g)u
Second singular -tzu -su -zu -zu
Third singular -ko/-tza -0/ -o -0/
a The clitics are given in their most common surface forms
3.3.3 Dative Clitics and Dative Flags
In Sect. 3.3.2, we pointed out certain similarities between dative and ergative clitic
exponents. In particular, the first singular enclitic allomorphs -t and -da are the
exponents of both dative and ergative clitics. This is captured in our analysis by
underspecifying the relevant entries in (22) for the dative/ergative case distinction
(with some dialectal variation discussed in Sect. 3.3.2). In this subsection, we
discuss these and other similarities in the exponence of dative and ergative clitics.
We pay special attention to a common claim in the literature whereby dative
clitics are decomposed into two separate morphemes: a dative flag and a dative
clitic proper, whose form is identical in the first and second person to its ergative
counterpart. We provide arguments below that these similarities between dative
and ergative clitics are accidental in the synchronic grammar of Biscayan varieties
(included the ones studied here), and that the decompositional analysis of dative
clitics is not correct for them, with the caveat that such an analysis may be correct
for at least some non-Biscayan varieties, and may provide a diachronic source for
current Biscayan dative forms.14
Consider first non-Biscayan (exemplified hereafter only for Guipuscoan) vari-
eties where the decompositional analysis mentioned above is justified. Table 3.4
provides the surface forms of dative and ergative clitics in Batua (the standard
dialect) and in the Guipuscoan variety of Etxarri-Aranatz.15 In these dialects, first
and second person dative and ergative clitics are identical in form.16 On the other
hand, the third person dative exponent -o is different from its ergative counterpart -0.
/
In these and many other varieties, dative clitics are always preceded by another
morpheme whose form is commonly -ki or -i (Hualde 2003b:210). This is illustrated
14 We would like to thank an anoymous reviewer for pointing out the relevance of the dative flag to
our analysis of Basque finite verbs.

15 For expository purposes, we exclude from explicit discussion second and third plural clitics. As
shown in Sect. 3.3.4 below, they are decompossed (by Fission) into a plural clitic (-e or -te) and a
person clitic identical in form to its singular counterpart. Our source for all Etxarri-Aranatz data in
this subsection is Gaminde (1985:Vol. 3, 3742), where Aranatz is spelled as Aranaz.
16 First plural -gu often surfaces as -u in Etxarri-Aranatz due to VS-Deletion (see (145) in Sect. 3.6.2
below).
Table 3.5 Applicative intransitive auxiliary in Etxarri-Aranatz

(Gaminde 1985:Vol. 3, 37)a
First singular First plural Second singular Third singular
d-a-ki-t d-a-ki-u d-a-ki-zu d-a-ki-yo
a Third singular absolutive forms
in the Etxarri-Aranatz applicative intransitive auxiliary forms in Table 3.5.17 We

shall use the theory-neutral term dative flag to refer to this morpheme, a common
label employed in the literature.18
The nature and origin of the dative flag has been the subject of a fair amount of
research in the Basque literature (de Azkue 1891:221231; Schuchardt 1893:4445;
Lafon 1961; Trask 1997:227229; Arregi 2001:8890; Elordieta 2001:62; Albizu
2002:4; Rezac 2006). The need for this morpheme in the analysis of many non-
Biscayan varieties is amply justified by paradigms like the one in Table 3.5.
However, its syntactic analysis in the grammar of these dialects is somewhat unclear.
A specific proposal is made in Rezac (2006:Chap. 4, 2427), where it is identified
with the Appl head that introduces the dative argument (see also Arregi 2001:88-
90; Elordieta 2001:62). In the particular case of Basque ditransitive clauses, Rezac
(2006:Chap. 3) adopts the following structure:
(30) Ditransitives in Rezac (2006)
vP
AErg v
ApplP v
IODat Appl
VP Appl
DOAbs V
17 The third singular clitic -o surfaces as -yo due to a regular epenthesis rule applying in the context
i V that is common in many Basque dialects. See Gaminde (1985:Vol. 1, 1337) for justification
of this rule in Etxarri-Aranatz, and Hualde (2003e:4849) for more general discussion.
18 Basque historical linguists agree that the original form of the dative flag is -ki, despite the fact
that it is relatively rare in this form in auxiliaries (-i being far more common). We illustrate here the
dative flag with forms from Etxarri-Aranatz because this is one of the very few varieties in which
it is preserved in this form. Thus, de Azkue (1925:575) notes that -ki in auxiliaries could still be
heard in a few places, including a rincn paradisaco de nuestra hermosa Nabarra (our translation:
paradise-like corner of our beautiful Navarre), and recalls that Doce o catorce aos atrs o hacia
Etxari-Aranaz, con una fruicin que sin duda asom al semblante, estas lindsimas flexiones: etori
dakit se me ha venido ... (our translation: Twelve or fourteen years ago I heard around Etxarri-
Aranatz, with a surprise that was undoubtedly apparent in my face, these most beautiful forms:
etorri dakit he has come to me . . . ). Although classified as part of the Guipuscoan dialectal area,
Etxarri-Aranatz is in the province of Navarre.
If the dative flag is the realization of Appl, then the latter must undergo Head
Movement to T (or higher). This raises the same issues that we saw in Sect. 1.4.3 in
Chap. 1 with respect to the related claim that v is part of the finite verbal complex:
(31) Putative illegal movement of Appl to T (via v):
[ TP [ AspP [ vP . . . [ ApplP . . . [ VP . . . V ] tAppl ] tv ] Asp ] Appl-v-T ]
Whether it moves directly to T, or as depicted above, has an intermediate step in

v, a Head Movement Constraint (HMC) violation ensues by skipping Asp. Note
that (30) is a high applicative structure in Pylkknens (2008) sense. Under the low
applicative analysis argued for in Oyharabal (2010) and adopted here (Sect. 1.4.1
in Chap. 1), the HMC problem is even clearer, as movement by Appl should be
blocked by V:
(32) Putative illegal movement of Appl to T in a low applicative structure:
[ TP [ AspP [ vP . . . [ VP [ ApplP . . . tAppl ] V ] tv ] Asp ] Appl-v-T ]
Another possibility might be to assume that the dative flag is the realization of
case in dative clitics, perhaps as the result of Fission (see Sect. 3.3.4 below for our
particular implementation of this operation in DM).
Whatever difficulties arise in the syntactic analysis of the dative flag, it is clear
that it is needed in the analysis of finite verbs in non-Biscayan dialects. The question
that is of interest to us here is whether this is also the case in Biscayan. The search
for cross-dialectal uniformity and the presence of certain similarities found between
dative and ergative clitics in Biscayan has prompted many scholars to propose a
similar decomposition of dative clitics in this dialectal area into a dative flag and a
dative clitic proper (de Azkue 1891:221231, 1925:561565; Schuchardt 1893:44
45; Trask 1997:227229; Arregi 2001:8890; Rezac 2006:Appendix BM, 18,
2008b:104). For instance, one could account for the surface form of Ondarru dative
clitics (given in Table 3.4) in terms of a dative flag -tz or -k (etymologically related
to -ki in other dialects)19 and a dative clitic, with the help of certain phonological
processes discussed in Sect. 3.6 below (see de Azkue 1891:221, 1925:561562;
Arregi 2001:8890 for explicit proposals along these lines)20 :
19 The allomorph -tz of the hypothesized dative flag in Biscayan is often referred to as -ts. The
latter form is etymologically correct, but due to the loss of place distinctions in alveolar fricatives
and affricates in Biscayan (Sect. 1.3.2), -tz must be the correct form in synchronic grammar. The
exponent -ts as a dative flag is marginally present in some finite forms in other dialects. See the
references cited above.
20 Note that the surface form of some Ondarru dative clitics in Table 3.4 differs somewhat from
the underlying forms proposed in Sect. 3.3.2 above. These differences are due to the phonological
processes discussed in Sect. 3.6 below.
(33) Decompositional analysis of putative dative flags and dative clitics in

Ondarru
a. First singular
-tz-t -s-ta
b. First plural
-tz-gu -s-ku
c. Second singular
-tz-su -tz-u
d. Third singular
-k-o -k-o
-tz-0/ -tz-a
As in the Guipuscoan dialects discussed above, the dative clitic in this analysis
is identical in form to the ergative clitic in most cases, with two exceptions (see
Table 3.4 for the surface form of ergative clitics in Ondarru). First, the underlying
form needed for the first plural clitic is -gu, but the surface form of the corresponding
ergative clitic is -u. In fact, the underlying form of the latter proposed in Sect. 3.3.2
above is -gu. Its initial consonant is deleted by VS-Deletion (145), discussed in
Sect. 3.6.2 below. Second, the dative clitic needed for third singular -ko is -o, but the
corresponding ergative clitic is -0. / As we saw above, this is also true for Guipuscoan
varieties.
The plausibility of this analysis rests heavily on independent motivation for the
phonological processes implicit in (33). As we discuss immediately below, such
motivation is largely absent. Although we concentrate mostly on Lekeitio, Ondarru,
and Zamudio, similar conclusions can be reached from other Biscayan varieties.
In the first person forms -sta (33a) and -sku (33b), the initial s would be derived
from tz in the dative flag. As discussed in Sect. 3.6.2 below, simplification of
affricates to fricatives before a consonant is a common process in Basque. However,
as shown there, the cluster tzC in Biscayan auxiliaries results in vowel epenthesis.
For instance, when -tz (the underlying form of the third singular dative clitic in
our analysis) is followed by first singular ergative -t or first plural ergative -gu in
Lekeitio and Ondarru, the result is -tza-t and -tza-(g)u, respectively, not -s-t(a) and
-s-ku.21 A similar issue arises with the second singular form -tzu (33c). Although the
cluster tz-s typically surfaces as tz in Basque, this is not the case in Biscayan finite
verbs, where this cluster triggers epenthesis. For instance, third singular dative -tz
followed by second singular ergative -su results in -tza-su, not -tz-u, in Lekeitio and
Ondarru.
The arguments in the previous paragraph rely on the claim that the final a in the
surface form of the third singular clitic -tz-a (33d) is the result of vowel epenthesis.
This could be called into question, since -a (alongside -o) seems to be an exponent
21 The final a in first singular dative -sta is derived by vowel epenthesis, both in the decompositional
analysis discussed here and in our own (Sect. 3.6.2 below).

of third person dative clitics in some varieties (i.a. Lafon 1961; Trask 1997:21920).
Nonetheless, Sect. 3.6.2 below provides thorough argumentation for an epenthetic
analysis of this vowel in Biscayan auxiliaries.22 Of particular relevance here is
the fact that the vowel is e in Zamudio. For instance, -tz-t surfaces as -tze-t, and
-tz-su as -tze-su in this variety. As discussed in Sect. 3.6.2, the a/e contrast in this
context is part of a wider generalization concerning variation within Biscayan that
points to an epenthetic analysis of this vowel. Furthermore, this vowel is absent
when -tz is already followed by a vowel, as expected in an epenthesis-based account.
This can be seen in Zamudio forms where third singular dative -tz is followed by
first plural ergative -u (cf. Lekeitio and Ondarru -gu), resulting in -tz-u (Tables A.4
and A.5 in Appendix A).23 This difference in the underlying form of the first plural
ergative clitic in Zamudio and the other two varieties discussed here is justified in
Sect. 3.6.2 below, where a number of differences between the surface forms of these
varieties are derived based on this hypothesis.
First plural -sku (33b) also requires devoicing of g in -gu. Progressive stop
devoicing is a common process in Basque (see Sect. 3.6.5 below for relevant
discussion). However, this analysis is not plausible for Zamudio. Its dative clitic
often surfaces as -sku, but the corresponding ergative clitic is -u, with no initial
velar stop, as shown above.24
A further problem that arises with first person dative clitics is the fact that, in
applicative intransitive auxiliaries, they surface without an initial s (i.e. as -t/-ku,
not -sta/-sku) in Lekeitio and Zamudio (Table A.2 in Appendix A).25 Thus, these
auxiliariy forms lack any trace of a dative flag.
Given all of these issues, the decompositional analysis of dative clitics sketched
in (33) is only possible for third person in Biscayan varieties. This account would
thus be forced to posit a dative flag (with allomorphs -tz and -k) with a very restricted
distribution, namely in the context of third person dative clitics. We thus conclude
22 We do not discard the possibility that this vowel is etymologically the exponent of a third person
dative clitic. Similar historical changes from exponent of some morpheme to a (morphologically
determined) epenthetic vowel are described in Todol (1992:139142) and Cardinaletti and Repetti
(2008:534541).
23 An analysis of surface -tz-u based on underlying tz-e-u and deletion of a is not plausible.
Although e is deleted before a vowel in auxiliaries in this dialect, this only happens when the
following vowel is not high (Sect. 3.6.2 below).
24 The possibility of progressive stop devoicing also raises the question of whether first singular
dative -sta is derived from the first singular enclitic allomorph -da (Sect. 3.3.2 above): -tz-da
-s-da (by affricate simplification) -s-ta (by devoicing). This would entail that the surface vowel
in this clitic is not epenthetic. There are two problems with this alternative. First, -da in Biscayan is
restricted to contexts where the first singular enclitic is immediately followed by complementizer
agreement -s (Sect. 3.3.2 above). Second, the final surface vowel of this clitic is e in Zamudio (-ste).
As discussed above, the alternation between a in Lekeitio and Ondarru vs. e in Zamudio points to
an epenthetic analysis of the vowel.
25 In our account, the initial s in these clitics results from s-Epenthesis, a phonological rule
discussed in Sect. 3.6.1 below. Its absence in applicative intransitives in Lekeitio and Zamudio
is due to a dialect-particular condition on its application.
that an analysis without a dative flag in Biscayan is to be preferred.26 On the other

hand, the evidence from other dialects, as well as the partial similarity between
dative and ergative clitics in Biscayan, point to the correctness of a decompositional
diachronic origin for the special surface forms of dative clitics in this dialectal area.
3.3.4 Plural Fission
As shown in Table 3.1 on p. 122, 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.
26 An anonymous reviewer raises a potential objection which, in our view, is not strong enough to
warrant an argument against the nondecompositional analysis. A number of verbs that typically
take dative objects seem to have affixes in their nonfinite forms that are etymologically related to
the dative flag, such as Lekeitio erakutzi show, teach and ereitxi (<ereitzi) seem (Hualde et al.
1994:253; cf. Batua erakutsi, eritzi). It is generally agreed that this part of these verbs is historically
related to the dative flag (Trask 1997:227229 and references there), but the reviewer suggests that
if this description is valid for the synchronic grammar of Basque, it constitutes an argument for
the existence of dative flags in finite verbs. There are several reasons to doubt that this is the
case: the dative flag and its etymological correlate in nonfinite forms have very different syntactic
properties, even in dialects that have clear dative flags in finite verbs. First, like other ditransitive
verbs, erakutsi and others with -tz/ts- can have implicit goal arguments (interpreted as nonspecific).
In sentences of this type, the main nonfinite verb still has -tz/ts-, but the auxiliary heading the
clause does not have a dative flag or a dative clitic (not even a default one; see Sect. 2.5 in Chap. 2).
Second, some of these verbs containing an etymological dative flag used to take dative objects at
an earlier stage of the language, but they no longer do so. A relevant example is Batua eduki (euki
in Biscayan) have (Trask 1997:227228; the putative dative flag in this case is etymologically
related to the finite dative flag -ki). Third, many dative verbs do not have any trace of a dative flag
in their nonfinite forms, regardless of the presence or absence of a dative argument in the clause.
Some relevant examples include eman give, saldu sell, lagundu help, and joan go (all verbs
are given in their Batua form; see Etxepare 2003b:385388, 411414 for a more complete list
that includes both verbs that have an etymological dative flag and ones that do not). The last
case is particularly telling. The verb joan is one of the few main verbs that have finite forms in
Basque. When taking a dative object (typically interpreted as allative) its finite forms have a dative
flag (e.g. Batua d-0-oa-ki-o
/ L-PRS.3. SG -go-DF-CL. D .3. SG ), but its nonfinite forms never do. All
these data point to the conclusion that the segments -ts/tz/k- in nonfinite forms of main verbs are
historical relics: while they are etymologically related to dative flags in finite verbs (or to dative
clitics in dialects where a decompositional analysis is not warranted), such a relation is absent in
the synchronic grammar of Basque.
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 [mes@] month is [ms@], and the plural of [fjor@] flower is [fjur@].
As shown by these examples, the effect of Metaphony in [+ATR] (tense) vowels
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 [vErm@] worm is [vjerm@], and the plural of [fOrt@] strong is
[fwort@]. Calabrese accounts for the latter case 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 conflicting features into
two separate segments, resulting in the diphthongs [iE] and [uO]: the first segment is
[+high], and the second is [ATR].27 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.28 This can be formalized as follows:
(34) 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:
27 In these examples, the [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.
28 In Calabreses (1998, 2005) theory, Fission is one of several operations employed in repairing
banned feature combinations (e.g. *[+high, ATR]). Morphological Fission may not have the
exact same motivation. The fact that Basque Plural Fission splits the features [author, singular]
into two separate nodes may reflect a constraint on the co-exponence of these two features on the
same node, as opposed to specifically being a marked feature combination. Continued research
into patterns of Fission at a pre-Vocabulary Insertion stage, as we have formalized it here, will lead
to further clarity on the cross-linguistic motivation behind such constraints. At present, we find it
encouraging that similar patterns of splitting nonfirst persons and number (but leaving first person
plural intact) are found in some Semitic, Kartvelian, and Waikuruan languages.

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:
(35) Plural Fission: clitic, [author], [singular].
Like other rules directly mapping syntactic structures to the postsyntactic com-
ponent, Plural Fission applies in the Exponence Conversion module. Given this
structural description, the output is the following:
(36) Structural change in Plural Fission:

D
author
D D
author singular
singular

peripheral peripheral peripheral

motion motion motion
participant participant participant
As the reader can verify, Vocabulary Insertion assigns the appropriate exponents to
the leftmost output morpheme given the entries proposed in the previous subsection.
The rightmost morpheme is realized by -e:
(37) Vocabulary entry for plural clitics
e [singular]
Since Plural Fission specifically targets the person feature [author], only second
and third person clitics are affected, and first plural clitics remain unfissioned.29
29 Insome varieties of the Western subdialect of Biscayan, dative and ergative first plural clitics do
surface with a fissioned 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 1992b:Vol. 1, 541673; Zamudio belongs to this variety, but it consistently lacks
Fission in the first plural). We assume that a separate rule, or a suitable modification of (35), 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 first plural does not trigger
Fission in all clitics even in these varieties shows that, as far as the literature reveals, no Biscayan
variety has reached this point.
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 Guipuscoan dialect30 :
(38) 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
(39) Second plural dative and ergative clitics in Berastegi
z -a -zu -e d -e -zu -e
L - PRS .3. SG - CL. D.2 - CL. D. PL L - PRS .3. SG - CL. E.2 - CL. E. PL
d -i -zu -e -0/
L - PRS .3. SG - CL. D.2 - CL. D. PL - CL . E .3. SG
d -i -o -zu -e
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . D .3. SG - CL. E.2 - CL. E. PL
(40) 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
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.31 Given our formalization of Fission,
30 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 field work notes by Resurreccin Mara de
Azkue in the early twentieth century).
31 A particularly common pattern in the Guipuzcoan dialect further restricts -te to intransitive
auxiliaries (e.g. Andoain, de Yrizar 1991: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, de Yrizar 1991:Vol. 1, 6971). This sample of
patterns does not exhaust the dialectal variation in the realization of plural clitics in Guipuscoan,
but provides a sufficient illustration of this variation, as well as the systematic dependence of the
form of the clitic on case and person features.
this generalization is straightforwardly implemented by restricting -te to certain case

and person features present in the morpheme after Fission:
(41) Berastegi: vocabulary entries for plural clitics
a. te [peripheral, motion, +participant, singular] 2Abs
b. e [singular]
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 Fission is two sister terminal nodes occupying the
same position as the input morpheme, which entails that the two nodes are adjacent
on the surface. As shown in Table 3.1 on p. 122, plural -e surfaces right-adjacent to
the clitic from which it is split in dative and ergative clitics, but not in absolutive
clitics:
(42) Bixitze bi-0/ ego-n s -intz -e -n (>sintzien)
life two-ABS be-PRF CL.A.2 -PST.2.PL -CL.A.PL -CPST
suo-k.
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 the context of displacement phenomena in Sect. 5.3
of Chap. 5.
3.3.5 On the Absence of Third Person Absolutive Clitics
The list of third person clitic vocabulary entries in (23) on p. 123 does not contain
entries compatible with third person absolutive clitics. This is expected, since as
shown in Sect. 2.2.1 in Chap. 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 clitic -e:
(43) Piti-an piti-an ei-ten d -o -su -s
often-IN.SG often-IN.SG do-IMP L -PRS.3.PL -CL.E.2.SG -3.PL
orr-ek geus-ek.
that-ABS.PL thing-ABS.PL
You do those things often. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:324)
On the other hand, a second plural absolutive argument is always doubled by a
proclitic from which plural -e is split off, as in (42) above.
If a clitic doubling the third plural absolutive argument were present in (43), 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 (Sect. 2.3.1 in Chap. 2), and from the phenomenon of Ergative Metathesis,
extensively discussed in Chap. 5.
Therefore, in sentences with a third person absolutive argument, as well as those
without an absolutive argument (Sect. 2.2.2 in Chap. 2), no clitic is adjoined to the
left of T. Due to a linearization-based condition on T proposed in Chap. 5, other
elements must fill the first position in the auxiliary in these cases. This can be
either 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:
(44) a. d -a
L - PRS .3. SG
b. s -a -n
L - PST.3. SG - CPST
c. dx -a -tzu -n
L - PST.3. SG - CL . D .2. SG - CPST
d. 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 decidedly uncharacteristic of pronominal clitics: none of the clitic
entries in (20)(23) are sensitive to tense features. This is thus evidence that the
forms in (44) are not the realization of a third person absolutive clitic. A complete
account of the L morpheme, including its exponence, is provided in Sect. 5.4.3 in
Chap. 5.
3.3.6 On Plural Morphology in Basque Finite Verbs
Plural number in absolutive, dative, and ergative arguments is expressed in different

ways in 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 Sect. 3.3.4 in the present chapter and in Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 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 (1997:221223), Hualde (2003b:210211) and
Rezac (2003:166167).32 Although these labels give a good first approximation

to the morphology of these exponents, there are significant 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 (or -te) 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 second-person 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 confined to the
third person (p. 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.
(p. 223).33
The distribution of both exponents is shown in Table 3.6, 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 finite auxiliary
heading a sentence containing an argument of the given argument type (the label
of the column).34 A first 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 marker should be applied with caution to these exponents:
32 The exponent -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 (Sect. 1.3.2 in Chap. 1). Another
difference between Biscayan and other varieties to be taken into account in reading those works
is that in non-Biscayan varieties, the plural clitic is -te instead of -e in certain environments (see
Sect. 3.3.4 above).
33 Trask posits the exponent *-de as a diachronic origin for -e (and -te in some varieties), and -z as
the source of modern-day Biscayan -s. Due to the particular history of second plural morphology
(Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 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.
34 There are exceptions for both exponents. The exceptions to the distribution of -s are fairly
idiosyncratic (Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 2). With respect to -e, it is absent in some auxiliaries due to
Impoverishment, as discussed in Sect. 4.7 in Chap. 4, and it can be deleted by a phonological rule
(see discussion surrounding example (176) in Sect. 3.6.2). 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 (Sect. 5.3 in Chap. 5). These details do not affect the argument presented here.
Table 3.6 Distribution of clitic -e and complementizer agreement -s

3Pl.Abs 2Pl.Abs 1Pl.Abs 2Sg.Abs 2/3Pl.Dat 1Pl.Dat 2Sg.Dat 2/3Pl.Erg 1Pl.Erg 2Sg.Erg
-s * * * * * *
-e * * * * * * *
-e does not surface in the context of first 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:
(45) Differences between clitic -e and complementizer agreement -s
a. -s surfaces with first plural, -e does not.
b. -s surfaces with second singular, -e does not.
c. -s surfaces only with absolutive, -e with absolutive, dative, and
ergative.
d. -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 Sect. 3.3.4 in the present chapter and Sect. 2.4.3 in
Chap. 2 for details):
(46) Analysis of -e
-e is the realization of a plural morpheme fissioned from a clitic.
(47) Analysis of -s
-s is the realization of [+M] in complementizer agreement. Complemen-
tizer 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 first plural (45a) is accounted for in Sect. 3.3.4 above:
Fission is restricted to [author] clitics. The difference in (45b) has to do with the
fact that while -e does realize plural number, -s realizes the feature [+M]. This
feature is specific to complementizer agreement, and replaces the number feature
in both plural and second singular feature bundles. This is an idiosyncratic fact
about agreement in Basque, and our analysis has its roots in firmly established
assumptions about the diachrony and synchrony of number morphology in the
language (see Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 3).
Complementizer agreement copies its -features from T. This explains the
restriction to absolutive arguments in (45c), since T typically has absolutive
agreement features.35 The fact that agreement in C systematically tracks agreement
35 There 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
a dative argument (Sect. 3.4.4). 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,
in T provides independent justification for this part of the analysis (Sect. 2.4.3 in
Chap. 2). The entry for -e, on the other hand, is not specified for case, and is thus
compatible with clitics with any case.
Finally, in our view, the most telling difference between the two exponents
is (45d), 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 which double arguments, this is not always the case. In particular, in the
absence of clitics doubling third person absolutive arguments, T (and therefore C)
agrees directly with the argument (Sect. 2.4.1 in Chap. 2).
Before we conclude this section, we would like to discuss the relation between
Biscayan -s and its relative -z in other dialectal areas, which also helps to
understand some of the differences between -s and -e discussed above. Although
undoubtedly etymologically related, we provide arguments below that Biscayan -s
and non-Biscayan -z have different synchronic analyses. From a Basque dialectal
perspective, the surface position of -s in Biscayan is puzzling when compared to the
position of -z in other dialects, where it is typically adjacent to the root. Compare,
for instance, the following applicative intransitive form in the Biscayan variety of
Ondarru and in the Gipuscoan variety of Etxarri-Aranatz:
(48) Placement of -s/-z in different Basque dialects
a. Ondarru (Biscayan)
g -a -tzu -s
L - PRS .3. PL - CL . D .2. SG -3. PL
b. Etxarri-Aranatz (Guipuscoan, Gaminde 1985:Vol. 3, 37)36
d -a -z -ki -zu
L - PRS -3. PL - DF - CL . D .2. SG
The plural exponent -z in Etxarri-Aranatz (48b) has properties that are typical of
many Guipuscoan and other non-Biscayan varieties, some of which are shared with
its Biscayan etymological equivalent -s, illustrated in Ondarru (48a). Specifically,
they both crossreference features of absolutive arguments only, including first plural
and third plural, and they both share the idiosyncratic property of crossreferencing
second singular absolutive arguments as if they were plural.37 On the other hand,
Biscayan -s has two properties that set it apart from other dialects. The first
one is that it surfaces near the end of the auxiliary, to the immediate left of the
complementizer position. On the other hand, Guipuscoan -z is right-adjacent to the
neither T nor complementizer agreement agree with it (Sects. 2.3.2 and 2.5 in Chap. 2). Both these
exceptions thus follow from our analysis as well.
36 Note that the Etxarri-Aranatz example contains a dative flag, glossed here as DF . See Sect. 3.3.3
above for relevant discussion, and for arguments that this morpheme is absent in Biscayan.
37 As noted in Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 2, in dialects that make a distinction between colloquial and
formal in the second person, this exceptional behavior of second singular is restricted to formal
forms.
Table 3.7 Applicative

Third singular Third plural
intransitive auxiliary in
Dative absolutive absolutive
Etxarri-Aranatz (Gaminde
1985:Vol. 3, 37) 1 singular d-a-ki-t d-a-z-ki-t
1 plural d-a-ki-u d-a-z-ki-u
2 singular d-a-ki-zu d-a-z-ki-zu
2 plural d-a-ki-zu-bie d-a-z-ki-zu-bie
3 singular d-a-ki-yo d-a-z-ki-yo
3 plural d-a-ki-yo-bie d-a-z-ki-yo-bie
root (T). For instance, in (48b), plural -z immediately follows present tense -a-.
This is also illustrated in the Etxarri-Aranatz applicative intransitive paradigm in
Table 3.7.38 Second, realization of the absolutive plural feature (more specifically,
[+M]) by Biscayan -s does not preclude realization of the same feature in T. This
was illustrated with example (95) in Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 2, repeated here:
(49) iddarr-ak ipi-txe
bean-ABS.PL put-IMP
d -oitu -a -s -n -in (>txuasenin)
when I cook beans (Ondarru)
In this auxiliary, the plurality of the absolutive argument is crossreferenced both in
T (-oitu-) and by -s (in the guise of the feature [+M] in complementizer agreement).
However, this is not the case with Guipuscoan -z. This can be illustrated with the
Etxarri-Aranatz paradigm in Table 3.7: the plurality of the absolutive argument is
crossreferenced by -z, and not by any other exponent in the auxiliary.
Based on the similarities listed above between the two types of dialects, an
anonymous reviewer suggests the following analysis of this morpheme that differs
from ours, even though it uses mechanisms available in the present framework.
According to this alternative account, -s/-z realizes agreement features in T in both
types of dialects. Since -s/-z is clearly a separate exponent from T (present tense
-a- in the Ondarru and Etxarri-Aranaz forms in (48)), it is in fact the realization of
an agreement morpheme that is split from T by Fission.39 The surface position of
Biscayan -s at the right edge of the auxiliary can then be accounted for as a case of
Metathesis, an operation explored thoroughly in this book in Chap. 5.
This alternative account would bring Biscayan -s closer to its Guipuscoan
counterpart (in that they are both exponents of agreement in T), and also to the
38 This table does not include second singular colloquial dative forms. See Gaminde (1985:Vol. 3,
37) for a complete paradigm.

39 See Sect. 3.3.4 above for our particular implementation of Fission. Alternatively, it could be
the result of Agree-Copy copying the features of the absolutive argument agreeing with T into a
separate Agr morpheme. Our objections to a Fission analysis of this exponent would apply to this
alternative account as well.
plural clitic -e (in that they are both inserted in morphemes that are the output of
Fission; see Sect. 3.3.4). However, we believe it is not correct for two reasons.40
First, metathetic phenomena in Basque always have dialectal variants that involve
Doubling instead of Metathesis, but this is not the case with Biscayan -s. This
aspect of this alternative account is discussed in more detail in Sect. 5.3.4 in
Chap. 5. Second, as illustrated above with Ondarru (Biscayan) and Etxarri-Aranatz
(Guipuscoan), in Biscayan, -s as the realization of plural ([+M]) agreement with
the absolutive argument is compatible with the realization of the agreement with
the same argument in the T position, a property not shared by Guipuscoan -z.
This difference between the two types of dialects is crucial: it provides an argument
for Fission (or generation of a separate Agr morpheme; see Footnote 39) in
Guipuscoan, but a counterargument to this analysis in Biscayan. As the result of
Fission, the plural feature (or [+M]) generated in T would be no longer part of
this morpheme. This seems to be true of Guipuscoan, but not Biscayan, where the
plurality of the absolutive argument is crossreferenced both in the T position and by
-s. In this respect, Guipuscoan -z is similar to the plural clitic exponent -e in Basque
auxiliaries, which we argue in Sect. 3.3.4 above is the result of Fission from clitics.
As shown there, the number feature is not present in one of the morphemes that
result from Fission. Crucially, Biscayan -s does not have this property indicative of
Fission.
To conclude, the fact that the complex distributional properties of Biscayan plural
-e and -s follow from our proposals in a straightforward way provides an argument
for our analysis of Basque finite auxiliaries. The 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 substrings are the topic of Sect. 3.5 below, where we argue
that they are in fact not isolable exponents, but nonatomic sequences contained
within different exponents of T whose distribution depend both on person and
number.
40 Although the analysis seems on the right track for Guipuscoan varieties, only a detailed account
of the structure and form of auxiliaries in these varieties can confirm whether it is in fact correct.
Our arguments below do not depend on the fate of this analysis of Guipuscoan dialects. It is also
possible that the analysis is correct as an explanation for the diachronic emergence of -s as the
exponent of complementizer agreement in Biscayan. In finite verbs with no dative or ergative
clitics, where terminal T is left-adjacent to C, the surface position of Biscayan -s at the right edge
of the auxiliary can be interpreted as originating either in T or C (see, for instance, Lekeitio third
plural d-ira-s in Table A.1 in Appendix A). As in other dialects, it seems plausible that -s was
the realization of an agreement morpheme fissioned from T in Biscayan, and that it was at a later
stage reinterpreted as complementizer agreement due to its ambiguous position in some forms.
This account is, however, highly speculative and can only be corroborated by detailed historical
analysis, which lies outside the objectives of the present work.
3.4 The Realization of Agreement on T 143
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 one of the major loci of dialectal variation in
Basque.41 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 Sect. 3.6 with an account of
the phonological processes that give rise to many of the differences between the
dialects.
As shown in Sect. 2.4 in Chap. 2 the root of the Basque auxiliary is a single
terminal node of category T, specified for both tense and agreement features. In
Sect. 3.4.1 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 features 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. Section 3.4.2 offers detailed analysis and discussion
of the realization of T in Lekeitio. In Sect. 3.4.3 we provide 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 Impoverishment rules that have
important effects in the realization of T in the three dialects. In most cases, the
-features in T reflect agreement with an absolutive argument, but as discussed in
Sect. 2.4.2 in Chap. 2, there are certain cases in which T also has -features from
the dative argument. Their realization is dealt with in Sect. 3.4.4.
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 conditioned by the argument
structure of the verb, are due to postsyntactic feature insertion rules applying in
the Morphological Concord module. The first one is sensitive to the presence of an
ergative clitic:
41 In fact, the realization of transitive T is traditionally used as one of the main sources for the
classification of Basque varieties into major dialectal areas (Hualde 2003b:222).

(50) 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 that this is the same phenomenon
as the have/be alternation in many Romance and Germanic languages. However,
Oyharabal (1993), Albizu and Eguren (2000), Albizu (2001), Albizu (2002) and
Arregi (2004) provide evidence 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.42
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 (Sect. 1.4.5 in Chap. 1). However,
Gaminde (2000) includes some Zamudio colloquial forms, including allocutive ones
(382385). Allocutive finite forms in Basque are unique in that they contain an
obligatory second person clitic that agrees with the interlocutor when the latter is
someone who would be addressed using colloquial forms.43 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 take. In a
nonapplicative intransitive auxiliary, the allocutive clitic is realized as an enclitic.
Thus, (52) is the allocutive counterpart of (51):
(51) Yoa-ngo n -as.
go-FUT CL.A.1.SG -PRS.1.SG
Ill go. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:109)
(52) Yoa-ngo n -o -k.
go-FUT CL.A.1.SG -PRS.1.SG -CL.ALLOC.2.SG.COLL.M
Both sentences have the same syntax and meaning: they are syntactically intransi-
tive, in the sense that they contain a single absolutive argument. The only difference
is that (in dialects using allocutive forms) (52) is used obligatorily whenever
addressing a male friend, and (51) is more formal. The allocutive auxiliary in (52)
contains the additional allocutive enclitic -k, which does not crossreference any DP
42 The works cited above assume that the root of auxiliaries is V, not T. The evidence below to the
effect that the transitivity alternation in auxiliaries is determined postsyntactically is independent

of these details of the analysis.
43 This brief description is sufficient for our purposes. A fuller discussion of allocutive clitics is in
Sect. 5.6.3 in Chap. 5. See Oyharabal (1993), Alberdi (1995) and Hualde (2003b:242246) for a
more complete description, with some indication of dialectal variation.
in the sentence.44 This allocutive clitic has the same form and occupies the same
position as an ergative clitic.
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 T agrees with the first
singular absolutive argument in both cases, in the nonallocutive auxiliary (51) it is
intransitive -as-, as expected, but in the allocutive auxiliary (52) it is transitive -o-
(see Sect. 3.4.3 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. Examples such as (52) therefore demonstrate that ergative Cliticization,
and not an ergative argument, triggers the presence of [+have] in T. In other words,
the transitivity alternation in the realization of T in Basque is determined by the
presence of an ergative clitic in the auxiliary that does not necessarily signal the
presence of an ergative argument, and is thus is a postsyntactic determination of
allomorphy. A further argument for this view is provided in Sect. 4.6.2 in Chap. 4,
where we discuss cases in which intransitive T surfaces in sentences with an ergative
argument, but no ergative clitic (as the result of postsyntactic deletion). Such
examples confirm the double dissociation between the (in)transitive root allomorphs
and argument-structural transitivity.
Another important property of the transitivity-related alternation discussed here
is that the sensitivity of T to the presence or absence of an ergative clitic occurs
even in cases where the ergative clitic is not adjacent to T.45 Given the linear locality
restrictions on VI discussed in Sect. 3.2.1, this entails that the alternation must be
accounted for in terms of the Morphological Concord operation proposed above,
and not in terms of contextual restrictions in the vocabulary entries in T. Consider,
for instance, the default transitive entry, discussed in more detail in the following
subsections:
(53) Default vocabulary entry for transitive T in Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio
o [+have]
T is realized as -o- in several auxiliaries containing an ergative clitic, even in cases
where a dative clitic intervenes between the two morphemes. The reader can verify
this by inspecting the relevant paradigms in Appendix A: the root exponent -o- does
not appear in intransitive auxiliaries (Tables A.1 and A.2), which demonstrates its
sensitivity to the presence of an ergative clitic, and it appears in several auxiliaries
in both monotransitive (Tables A.3 and A.6) and ditransitive (Tables A.4, A.5, A.7,
and A.8) paradigms, showing that the ergative clitic need not be adjacent to T for
this conditioning to occur.
44 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.
45 We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their help in clarifying the point discussed
in this paragraph.
Relaxing the linear-based locality conditions on contextual restrictions in VI in

order to circumvent the issue raised above would not be satisfactory, since there are
several cases of allomorphy in Basque auxiliaries in which adjacency plays a crucial
role. Consider, for instance, the following vocabulary entry in Lekeitio:
(54) A third person vocabulary entry for T in Lekeitio
au
[+have, past, participant, author]/ [Ergative, participant]
As discussed in more detail below, -au- is a present tense transitive exponent that
is restricted to contexts where a third person ergative clitic is right-adjacent to T
(in other present tense transitive contexts, third person is realized as default -o-).
This is captured in our analysis through a contextual restriction in its vocabulary
entry making reference to an ergative clitic, which, by the locality conditions on
VI assumed here, must be adjacent to T. Thus, one must distinguish two types of
sensitivity to the presence of an ergative clitic: one where adjacency is required,
and another one where it is not. These are handled by distinct mechanisms in the
analysis: the former in terms of contextual restrictions such as those in (54), and the
latter in terms of Morphological Concord rules such as Have-Insertion.
Finite auxiliaries are also subject to allomorphy that is sensitive to the presence
of a dative clitic, conditioned by the following operation within the Morphological
Concord module:
(55) 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 finite roots into
four categories that are indirectly related to argument structure: ditransitive [+have,
+appl], monotransitive [+have, +appl], applicative intransitive [have, +appl],
and nonapplicative intransitive [have, appl]. Each of these combinations may
potentially play a role in conditioning the allomorphic distribution of vocabulary
entries.
3.4.2 Lekeitio
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. 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 all three varieties (and in many others in the Biscayan dialect):
Table 3.8 Intransitive T in

the absence of a dative clitic Absolutive Present Past
in Lekeitio First singular as itz
First plural ara ina
Second singular ara ina
Second plural ara ina
Third singular a a
Third plural ira ira
First Singular Clitic Impoverishment applies to clitics, but it has a significant

effect on the realization of T. It deletes the [+participant] feature from first person
singular clitics, thereby bleeding several Impoverishment rules and vocabulary
entries affecting T that 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 Sects. 4.6 and 4.7 in Chap. 4.
First Singular T Impoverishment changes the marked feature set [+participant,
+author] to unmarked [participant, author] in first person singular transitive
T in the present tense. The net result is that first singular agreement has the same
realization as third person in present transitive T. This rule has its most general
form in Zamudio, but 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
specification):
Intransitive: -itz- (first 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- (first singular present) and -ara- (participant
present).
Transitive: -aitu- (participant present), -(o)itu- (third plural present), -au- (third
person present), -eu- (third person past), -endu- (third person past), and -o-
(default). Lekeitio and Ondarru also share -a- (first singular present).
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
addition of exponents that are sensitive to the presence of a dative clitic in the
auxiliary.
For ease of exposition, we present first the vocabulary entries for intransitive T
(Table 3.8). They are distinguished from the entries for transitive T in their negative
specification for the feature [have]. The entries are the following:
(56) Lekeitio: vocabulary entries for first singular intransitive T
a. itz [have, appl, +past, +part, +author, +singular] Past
b. as [have, appl, past, +part, +author, +singular] Present
Table 3.9 Monotransitive T in Lekeitioa

Absolutive
Ergative 1 singular 1 plural 2 singular 2 plural 3 sing prs/pst 3 pl prs/pst
1 singular X X aitu aitu o/eu o/eu
1 plural X X aitu aitu o/endu o/endu
2 singular a aitu X X o/endu o/endu
2 plural a aitu X X o/endu o/endu
3 singular au aitu aitu aitu au/eu itu/eu
3 plural au aitu aitu aitu au/eu au/eu
a Present and past forms are identical except where indicated
(57) Lekeitio: vocabulary entries for first plural/second person intransitive T

a. ina [have, appl, +past, +participant] Past
b. ara [have, appl, past, +participant] Present
(58) Lekeitio: vocabulary entry for third plural intransitive T
ira [have, appl, participant, author, singular]
(59) Lekeitio: default vocabulary for intransitive T
a [have]
These vocabulary entries account for the forms of T in Table 3.8 in a straightforward
way. Note that all entries except default -a- (59) are specified 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 A.2 in Appendix A for relevant forms).46
The realization of transitive T (see Table 3.9) is mediated by the Impoverishment
rules in (60)(62) and the entries in (63)(66).47
(60) Lekeitio: First Singular Clitic Impoverishment
(61) Lekeitio: Past Participant T Impoverishment48
46 Note that this is a case of default realization of agreement, not syntactic failure of Agree,
discussed in Sect. 2.5 in Chap. 2. Unlike the cases discussed there, T agrees with an argument in this
case, but the lack of specific vocabulary entries for this environment results in default realization.
47 Recall that SD stands for structural description and SC for structural change in Im-
poverishment rules. In feature specifications in this section, case labels such as ergative are
abbreviations for the corresponding case feature sets, except where a more formal representation
is required.
48 Past Participant T Impoverishment changes the feature [past] in T from its marked value to
the unmarked value, and is thus a feature reversal rule in the sense of Chap. 4. Several other
Impoverishment rules in this section are of this type. See Sect. 4.2 in Chap. 4 for the distinction
between feature deletion and feature reversal Impoverishment, and for our implementation of the
a. SD: a T node specified as [+past, +participant] and an ergative clitic

b. SC: T [past, +participant]
(62) Lekeitio: First Singular T Impoverishment
a. SD: a T node specified as [past, +participant, +author, +singular]
and an ergative clitic specified as [participant]
b. SC: T [past, participant, author, +singular]
(63) Lekeitio: vocabulary entries for participant transitive T in the present
a. a [+have, past, +participant, +author, +singular] 1Sg
b. aitu [+have, past, +participant]/ [peripheral]
(64) Lekeitio: entries for third person monotransitive T in the present
a. itu
[+have, past, part, author, sing]/ [Erg, part, +sing] Pl
b. au
(65) Lekeitio: vocabulary entries for third person transitive T in the past
a. endu [+have, +past, part, author]/[Ergative, +part]
b. eu [+have, +past, participant, author]
(66) Lekeitio: default vocabulary entry for transitive T
o [+have]
The Impoverishment rules apply in the order shown, as discussed below.
The entries in (64) 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 specifications of these entries. In the context of other ergative clitics,
default -o- (66) is inserted.
In the past tense, third person T is realized as -endu- (65a) in the context of a
participant ergative clitic. Default past tense -eu- (65b) 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 first singular, since the [+participant] feature in the latter is deleted
by First Singular Clitic Impoverishment (60).49 This is illustrated by the matrix
auxiliary in the following example, whose derivation proceeds as in (68).
(67) Lekitto-n n -e -u -n -ian, (>neuanian)
Lekeitio-IN CL.A.1 SG -PST.1.SG -be -CREL -IN.SG
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)
latter as deletion of the marked value of the targeted feature followed by insertion of the unmarked
value.
49 This rule finds justification in the different effects it has in the verbal paradigms of all dialects
studied here (see Sect. 3.4.3 in the present chapter and Sects. 4.6 and 4.7 in Chap. 4).
(68) a. Representation of T and ergative clitic:

[+past, part, author, +sing] [Ergative, +part, +author, +sing]
b. Deletion of [+participant] in clitic by First Singular Clitic
Impoverishment (60):
[+past, part, author, +singular] [Ergative, +author, +singular]
c. Have and Appl-Insertion:
[+have, appl, +past, part, author, +sing] [Erg, +author, +sing]
d. Ergative Metathesis:
[Erg, +author, +sing] [+have, appl, +past, part, author, +sing]
e. Failure to match -endu- (65a) and insertion of -eu- (65b) in T:
[Ergative, +author, +singular] -eu-
Note that the third person exponents in (64) and (65a) are all specified 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 (65a) and to its right in (64). 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 Sect. 3.3.1).
However, in the past tense, the ergative clitic is displaced to the left of T by Ergative
Metathesis, discussed in detail in Sect. 5.4 in Chap. 5. This is illustrated in the fourth
step in (68).
Although the realization of third person T 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 (64) 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:
(69) (ClAbs ) T (ClDat ) ClErg CAgr C
T is left-adjacent to an ergative only if there is no dative clitic.50 Thus, the present
tense third person entries in (64) are compatible only with auxiliaries without a
dative clitic. The -feature-based distinctions in exponence (singular vs. plural) are
therefore neutralized in ditransitive auxiliaries, where default -o- (66) is the only
entry that can be inserted in T (see Tables A.4 and A.5 in Appendix A for relevant
forms).51 As noted in Sect. 3.2.1, T and the ergative clitic are adjacent linearly, not
50 The analysis adopted in terms of adjacency, whereby datives linearly intervene in such way
as to block compatibility with the ergative-sensitive contextual specification of the vocabulary

entries, departs from our proposal in Arregi and Nevins (2008), in which datives syntactically
intervene in Agree and hence lead to neutralization of root allomorphy. The latter analysis cannot
be upheld, since intact agreement on C (see Chap. 2, Sect. 2.4.3) demonstrates that the dative
does not cause agreement intervention. Relevant auxiliary forms can be found, for instance, in
Table A.5 in Appendix A, where plural complementizer agreement (-s) crossreferences features of
the absolutive argument in the presence of a dative.
51 Exceptions to this pattern have to do with First Dative T Impoverishment (Sect. 2.4.2 in Chap. 2),
one of whose effects is on the realization of dative agreement features in T. Its effect on the form
of agreement are discussed in detail in Sect. 3.4.4.
structurally, which provides support for 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- (65a) is restricted to auxiliaries where a participant ergative clitic has
undergone Ergative Metathesis and therefore precedes T. As shown in Sect. 5.4.1
in Chap. 5, participant ergative clitics do not undergo Metathesis in Lekeitio
ditransitives. Thus, endu is blocked in the context of a third person or first singular
ergative clitic because the latter is not [+participant],52 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- (65b) in the past tense, due to the lack of
contextual restrictions in this entry (see Tables A.7 and A.8 in Appendix A for
relevant forms).
Although -featural distinctions are neutralized in T in ditransitives, they are not
in complementizer agreement (Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 2): a plural argument triggers
insertion of -s at this terminal, and a singular argument does not. Thus, the auxiliary
as a whole is not syncretic for agreement features. The reader can verify that this is
the case in both present and past tense ditransitives in Tables A.4, A.5, A.7, and A.8
in Appendix A.
When T is first or second person, Past Participant T Impoverishment (61) ensures
that the forms of past T are identical to the present. In both tenses, participant T is
realized as -a- (63a) in the first singular, and -aitu- (63b) otherwise. The exception
is first singular in the context of a third person ergative clitic in the present tense,
where application of First Singular T Impoverishment (62) ensures that first singular
T has the same realization as third singular present T in this context (-au-, as
shown above).53 Past Participant T Impoverishment applies before First Singular
T Impoverishment, and the combined effect of the two rules can be seen in the
following example, where first singular past tense T has the same realization as
third singular present (not past) T:
(70) Peru-k ikus-i n -au -0/ -n. (>naben)
Peru-ERG see-PRF CL.A.1SG -PST.1 SG -CL.E.3.SG -CPST
Peru saw me. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:127)
(71) a. Representation of T and ergative clitic:
[+past, +part, +author, +sing] [Ergative, part, author, +sing]
b. Past Participant T Impoverishment (61):
past, +part, +author, +sing] [Ergative, part, author, +sing]
[
52 As noted above, first singular clitics are not [+participant] due to First Singular Clitic Impover-
ishment (60).
53 The realization of first 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 (Sect. 2.5 in Chap. 2). In the present case, T does agree
with a first person Goal, but Impoverishment results in realization as unmarked third singular.
c. First Singular T Impoverishment (62):

[past, part, author, +sing] [Ergative, part, author, +sing]
d. Have and Appl-Insertion:
[+have, appl, past, part, auth, +sing] [Ergative, part, auth,
+sing]
e. Blocking of -a- (63a) and -aitu- (63b), and insertion of -au- (64b):
-au- [Ergative, participant, author, +singular]
This concludes the analysis of Impoverishment and Vocabulary Insertion in the
distribution of allomorphy in Lekeito forms of the auxiliary root. In the following
subsection, we provide a formal analysis of the realization of T in Ondarru and
Zamudio, and discuss their 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 first plural and second person, which is -ina- (57a) in Lekeitio, while it is
-intz- in Zamudio. However, the list of entries in Ondarru is significantly different
from the other two varieties:
(72) Ondarru: vocabulary entries for participant intransitive T
a. itz [have, appl, +past, +part, +author, +singular] 1Sg Past
b. ina [have, appl, +past, +participant] Past
c. as [have, appl, past, +participant] Present
(73) Ondarru: vocabulary entry for third plural intransitive T
i [have, appl, participant, author, singular]
(74) Ondarru: default vocabulary entry for intransitive T
a [have]
Like Lekeitio and Zamudio, -itz- (72a) realizes first singular T in the past in Ondarru,
and -ina- (72b) (-intz- in Zamudio) realizes participant T in the same tense. On the
other hand, Lekeitio and Zamudio present tense -ara- (57b) is absent from Ondarru,
where its function is taken over by -as- (72c), 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- (73) in the former, and -ira- (58) 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:
(75) Ondarru: First Singular Clitic Impoverishment
(76) Ondarru: First Singular T Impoverishment

(77) Ondarru: First Plural T Impoverishment
a. SD: a T node specified as [+participant, +author, singular] and an
ergative clitic specified as [+participant]
b. SC: T [participant, author, singular]
(78) Ondarru: Third Plural T Impoverishment
a. SD: a T node specified as [past, participant, author, singular]
and an ergative clitic specified as [+participant]
b. SC: delete [singular] in T
(79) Ondarru: vocabulary entry for first singular in the past
itu
[+have, +past, +part, +author, +sing]/ [periph, part, author]
(80) Ondarru: vocabulary entries for participant transitive T
a. indu [+have, +past, +participant] Past
b. a [+have, past, +participant, +author, +singular] 1Sg Present
c. aitu [+have, past, +participant]/ [peripheral] Present
(81) Ondarru: entries for third person monotransitive T in the present
a. oitu
[+have, past, part, author, singular]/ [Ergative] Plural
b. au
(82) Ondarru: vocabulary entries for ditransitive T in the past
a. e
[+have, +past, part, author]/[Erg, +author, +sing] [Dative]
b. en
[+have, +past part, author]/[Ergative, +part] [Dative]
(83) Ondarru: vocabulary entries for third person transitive T in the past
b. eu [+have, appl, +past, participant, author]
(84) Ondarru: Default vocabulary entry for transitive T
o [+have]
The main differences with respect to Lekeitio are the following:
Unlike Lekeitio, Ondarru does not have Past Participant T Impoverishment (61),
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- (79) and -indu- (80a), 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 (77).
Unlike Lekeitio, -eu- (83b) is restricted to monotransitive T (appl) in Ondarru,
which accounts for its absence in ditransitive auxiliaries.
Third Plural T Impoverishment (78), particular to Ondarru, ensures that third
plural -oitu- (81a) is not inserted in the context of a participant ergative clitic
(with the exception of first singular, due to prior application of First Singular
Clitic Impoverishment (75)).
The entries for -e- (82a) and -en- (82b) (absent in Lekeitio) are specified for
past ditransitive auxiliaries, in the particular contexts of a first singular (-e-)
or participant (-en-) ergative clitic. The contextual restriction specifies that the
ergative clitic must precede T, which limits these exponents to cases of Ergative
Metathesis (see discussion below (68)). As shown in Sect. 5.4.1 in Chap. 5,
Metathesis does not apply when the dative clitic is first person. In this case, -en-
cannot be inserted, and default -o- is used instead.54
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 operation of Root Reduplication, and its effects on VI
in T are discussed in Sect. 5.7.2 in Chap. 5.
Zamudio has the following Impoverishment rules and vocabulary entries for
transitive T:
(85) Zamudio: First Singular Clitic Impoverishment
(86) Zamudio: First Singular T Impoverishment
and an ergative clitic
(87) Zamudio: First Plural T Impoverishment
a. SD: a T node specified as [past, +participant, +author, singular]
b. SC: T [past, participant, author, singular]
(88) Zamudio: Third Ditransitive T Impoverishment
a. SD: A T node specified as [+past, participant, author], a dative
clitic and an ergative clitic specified as [participant, author]
b. SC: delete [participant, author] in T
54 This discussion of the realization of ditransitive T is also relevant for auxiliaries with Absolutive
Promotion (Sect. 2.3.2 in Chap. 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.
(89) Zamudio: vocabulary entries for participant transitive T

a. endu [+have, +past, +participant] Past
b. aitu [+have, past, +participant]/ [peripheral] Present
(90) Zamudio: vocabulary entries for third person transitive T in the present
a. itu [+have, past, part, auth, sing]/ [Erg, part] Plural
b. au [+have, past, part, author]/ [Ergative, part] Singular
(91) Zamudio: vocabulary entry for past ditransitive T
eun [+have, +past, participant, author]/[Ergative] [Dative]
(92) Zamudio: vocabulary entries for third person transitive T in the past
b. eu [+have, appl, +past, participant, author]
(93) Zamudio: Default vocabulary entry for transitive T
o [+have]
The main differences between Zamudio and the other two varieties can be summa-
rized as follows:
Unlike the other two dialects, First Singular T Impoverishment (86) is not
restricted to the context of a third person ergative clitic. Thus, first singular has
the same realization as third singular in the present tense in this dialect: -au- (90b)
or -o- (93).
As in Ondarru, 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 T Impoverishment (87).
As in Ondarru, Zamudio does not have Past Participant T Impoverishment (61),
and the specific entry -endu- (89a) is inserted in participant T in the past.55
55 In Ondarru, as in many other Biscayan varieties, the form of this exponent is -indu- (80a).
The form of Zamudio participant -endu- (89a) makes it homophonous with third person -endu-
(92a). 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 find a feasible version
of such an analysis. There are, however, certain facts that point to that account, at least for some
speakers. First, in the context of a first singular ergative clitic, third person T in the past is -endu-
(92a), not -eu- (92b), for some speakers (Gaminde 2000:374) (see (68) above and surrounding
discussion). This strongly suggests that for these speakers, third person -endu- does not have
the contextual restriction imposed on (92a), 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
(Sect. 3.4.2; cf. (80a) in Ondarru). In turn, this is due to Past Participant T Impoverishment (61),
which changes a node specified as [+past, +participant] into [past, +participant]. Given the
relation between markedness and Impoverishment discussed in Chap. 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.
The realization of T in past ditransitives is somewhat more complex in Zamudio.

First, there is a specific entry -eun- (91) for this environment. As with similar
entries in Ondarru, it is restricted to cases where Ergative Metathesis applies.
In other cases, default -o- (93) 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 (88).
The discussion above does not include certain auxiliaries whose clitics are affected
by Participant Dissimilation; see Sect. 4.6.2 in Chap. 4.
To summarize, the realization of transitive T shares many properties across 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 specifications: 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 the dialect-particular Impoverishment rules and vocabulary
entries that yield certain patterns of syncretism and blocking.
3.4.4 Multiple Agreement in Lekeitio
Recall from Chap. 2 the proposal that T undergoes Multiple Agree with both
absolutive and dative arguments in Basque, which may result in two feature sets
on T, depending on the results of Agree-Copy. 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 procedure for Vocabulary Insertion presented at the beginning of this chapter.
Although T in Basque agrees with both absolutive and dative arguments, it
typically surfaces only with -features from the absolutive argument, as shown
below for Ondarru:
(94) Mokixe-k gu-rii tabaku-0/ erregala-0/
d -o -kui -0.
/ (>sku)
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . D .1. PL i - CL . E .3. SG
Mokixe has given us tobacco. (Ondarru)
This follows from the two-step procedure for agreement proposed in Sect. 2.4 in
Chap. 2. In the syntax, T triggers Agree-Link with both the first plural dative clitic
and the third singular absolutive argument. However, postsyntactic Agree-Copy may
only copy feature values from an absolutive Goal. The result is third singular agree-
ment in (94): replacing third singular -o- with first plural -aitu- is ungrammatical in
this example (*daitusku).56
Deviations from this pattern are due to operations that in some way circumvent
the requirement on Agree-Copy to the effect that only -feature values from
absolutive Goals can be copied to T. Specifically, First Dative T Impoverishment
in Lekeitio changes the case features of first person dative clitics to absolutive in
ditransitive auxiliaries (Sect. 2.4.2 in Chap. 2). The effect of this rule on agreement
can be seen in the Lekeitio counterpart of (94):
(95) Mokixe-k gu-rii tabaku-a erregala-0/
gi -aitu -0.
/ (>gaitxu)
CL . A .1. PL i - PRS .1. PL - CL . E .3. SG
As a result of the Impoverishment rule, -feature values from both the first
plural dative (impoverished to absolutive) and the third singular absolutive Goals
are copied to T. Although both sets of feature values are copied, only one of
them is realized overtly. In this particular example, T surfaces with first 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 specific feature combinations in T, as well as the -features of the
adjacent ergative clitic. Of further relevance to the present discussion is the behavior
of complementizer agreement in these forms, which can also reflect agreement
with either the dative or the absolutive argument. Moreover, 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:
(96) Su-k ni-rii antxo-ak j emo-n
you(Sg)-ERG me-DATi anchovy-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 j
You(Sg) have given me anchovies. (Lekeitio, Fernndez 2001:162)
Table 3.10 contains all the relevant forms from the dialect of Lekeitio (Hualde et al.
1994:125).57 In each cell, the boldfaced portion is the exponent of T. The exponent
-s found at the end of some forms is the realization of complementizer agreement.
56 Using both exponents is ungrammatical as well: *doaitusku, *daituosku.

57 Recallthat the syntactically dative first person clitic in these forms is morphologically absolutive
due to First Dative T Impoverishment. We label the relevant columns in Table 3.10 as dative for
ease of exposition.
Table 3.10 Multiple agreement in Lekeitio present tense ditransitives

1Sg dative 1Pl dative
Ergative 3Sg absolutive 3Pl absolutive 3Sg absolutive 3Pl absolutive
2 singular n-a-su n-a-su-s g-aitu-su g-aitu-su-s
2 plural n-a-su-e n-a-su-e-s g-aitu-su-e g-aitu-su-e-s
3 singular n-au-0/ n-itu-0-s
/ g-aitu-0(-s)
/ g-aitu-0-s
/
3 plural n-au-0-e
/ n-au-0-e-s
/ g-aitu-0-e
/ g-aitu-0-e-s
/
Another important morphological property of these auxiliaries is that the realiza-

tion of -features in T and complementizer agreement does not depend on the case
features of the Goal. For instance, first plural agreement in (95) is with the dative
argument, and its exponent -aitu- is identical with that found in a monotransitive
sentence with a first plural absolutive argument (covert in the following example):
(97) 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 verified by comparing the exponents for T in Table 3.10 with
those in monotransitives, given in Table 3.9 on p. 148. Each exponent of T in the
former is identical with some exponent of T 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 Sect. 3.2.2,
which adapts ideas from van Koppen (2005). Consider an example such as (95)
where T (and C) are specified for both first plural (from the dative argument) and
third singular (from the absolutive argument). The T terminal node has the following
representation before Vocabulary Insertion:
(98) The representation of T in (95)

T T
+have +have

appl appl

past past

+participant participant

+author author
singular +singular
As shown here, we assume that, unlike other terminal nodes, a node that has multiple
-feature sets contains internal structure, in the sense that each feature set forms its
own feature subbundle. Furthermore, these subbundles contain matching values for
the other features that are typically in T: the categorial feature, and [past, have,
appl]. Since the latter are not relevant for the discussion here, we omit them in
our representations of other cases below. Although these feature subbundles are not
ordered in relation to each other, we adopt the notational convention of representing
the dative set to the left of the absolutive, as in (98), for ease of reference.
In configurations like this one where a terminal node contains more than one
subbundle of features, VI could select a potentially different exponent for each
subbundle. Since only one exponent can be inserted per terminal node, VI then
chooses among one of the exponents using the ordinary procedure: the most specific
one according to their MFS and contextual restriction, or, in cases where specificity
is not relevant, the one with the most marked MFS.
Our analysis thus predicts that the realization of T and complementizer agree-
ment in these cases is highly dependent on the specific 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
first person, since First Dative T Impoverishment only affects first person clitics.
Furthermore, the absolutive Goal is always third person, due to the PCC (Sect. 2.3
in Chap. 2). Thus, the relevant vocabulary entries for T are the following (repeated
from Sect. 3.4.2):
(99) Vocabulary entries for first and third person monotransitive T in the present
in Lekeitio
a. a [+have, past, +participant, +author, +singular] 1Sg
b. aitu [+have, past, +participant]/ [peripheral] 1Pl
c. itu
[+have, past, part, author, sing]/ [Erg, part, +sing] 3Pl
d. au
[+have, past, part, author]/ [Ergative, part] 3
e. o [+have]
First Singular T Impoverishment, repeated here from (62), is also relevant for cases
in which the dative Goal is first singular:
(100) First Singular T Impoverishment in Lekeitio
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 four types of cases. The reader can verify that the
predictions illustrated here match the data in Table 3.10 on p. 158.
First, consider auxiliaries with a second person ergative clitic58 :

(101) The realization of multiple agreement in the context of a second person
ergative clitic
a. First singular dative Goal

+participant participant Ergative
+author author +participant

+singular singular author
a o singular
b. First plural dative Goal

+author author +participant

singular singular author
aitu o singular
In these representations, the first feature complex is T (with its two subbundles of
-features), and the second one is the ergative clitic. Below each subbundle in T, we
specify the the vocabulary entry from those in (99) that VI selects for that specific
subbundle. Finally, a check mark () is placed next to the entry that is actually
selected for insertion in T.
In all the ditransitive auxiliaries represented by (101), T surfaces with first
person (dative) agreement. The relevant entries are -a- (99a) and -aitu- (99b) for
first person, and -o- (99e) (the other third person entries being blocked by their
contextual restriction). Since both -a- and -aitu- have a more specific MFS than -o-
(the default entry), the former are chosen for insertion in T.
Auxiliaries where T is followed by a third singular ergative clitic are more
heterogeneous in their realization. Consider first a T with first singular features from
a dative Goal:
(102) The realization of multiple agreement with a first singular dative Goal in
the context of a third singular ergative clitic
a. Third plural absolutive Goal

participant participant Ergative
author author participant

au itu +singular
b. Third singular absolutive Goal


+singular +singular author
au au +singular
58 As predicted by the analysis, the realization of T is the same regardless of the number on the
second person clitic. In these and other representations below, we use the label Ergative to
represent the corresponding set of case features. We also omit the categorial D feature from the
clitic.
As indicated in (102a), a T terminal with features from a first singular dative Goal
and third plural absolutive Goal surfaces with third plural absolutive agreement
as -itu-. In this particular context, the exponent for third plural is -itu- (99c).
As represented in (102a), first singular agreement features from the dative Goal are
impoverished to third due to First Singular T Impoverishment (100), making -au-
(99d) the relevant exponent. Since the MFS of -itu- is more specific than -au-, the
former is picked for insertion in T. In a terminal T with first singular (impoverished
to third) and third singular agreement (102b), -au- is selected for both, and thus VI
need not perform any further selection for the realization of T.
The other type of case occurring in the context of a third singular ergative clitic,
namely when the dative Goal is first plural, is somewhat more complicated:
(103) The realization of multiple agreement with a first plural dative Goal in the
context of a third singular ergative clitic
a. Third plural absolutive Goal

+author author participant

aitu itu +singular
b. Third singular absolutive Goal


singular +singular author
aitu au +singular
In these cases, the exponent for first plural is -aitu- (99b), and the exponents for
third person are -itu- (90c) (plural in (103a)) and -au- (99d) (singular in (103b)). The
feature specifications for -aitu- (specified as [+participant]) and -au/itu- (specified
as [participant]) are not in a subset relation with each other, and therefore their
contextual restriction is not relevant. Hence, VI resorts to markedness to determine
the competition. The result is insertion of -aitu-, as markedness in person features
overrides markedness in number.
The last type of case comes from auxiliaries with a third plural ergative clitic:
(104) The realization of multiple agreement in the context of a third plural
ergative clitic
a. First singular dative Goal


au au singular
b. First plural dative Goal


aitu au singular
The realization of T is very similar to the previous two cases. The main difference
lies in the fact that third person plural -itu- (99c) is restricted to auxiliaries with a
third singular ergative clitic. Thus, it is not available in these cases, and where -itu-
appears in (102)(103), it is replaced by -au- in (104).
The realization of complementizer agreement is accounted for in a similar way.
As discussed in Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 2, this morpheme has a single overt exponent, -s,
in cases of plural agreement, and it is 0/ otherwise.59 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, first plural (dative) features, or both. This prediction is clearly borne out
in all cases with third plural agreement: all of them have -s (see the second and
fourth columns in Table 3.10 on p. 158). In cases of first 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, but not otherwise (see the third column
in Table 3.10). We assume that this is due to the more generally irregular distribution
of this exponent when realizing agreement with nonthird person arguments (see
Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 2).
Our analysis thus derives in a principled way the complex distribution of
exponents of T and complementizer agreement in cases of multiple agreement.
The vocabulary entries and Impoverishment rules independently needed for mono-
transitives, together with natural assumptions about Vocabulary Insertion, provide a
straightforward account of this pattern.
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 great deal of
microvariation. As shown in detail above, the exponence of this morpheme depends
on a number of factors: tense, person and number agreement features (of both
the absolutive and dative kind), the postsyntactic transitivity feature [have], and
features present in other morphemes in the auxiliary. The analysis offered in this
section reduces these idiosyncrasies to the minimum possible, by making a clear
59 A detail not relevant here is that second singular also triggers insertion of -s. See Sect. 2.4.3 in
Chap. 2.
3.5 The Realization of Auxiliary Morphemes in Previous Accounts 163
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
for the variation among the three dialects studied here in a principled manner, 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 beyond, and
should be easy to test in future work.
This analysis of the realization of the root rests on two crucial syntactic claims:
(1) the root is a morphosyntactically atomic piece, and (2) 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 these aspects of the account.
3.5 The Realization of Auxiliary Morphemes in Previous

Accounts
In the analysis of Basque finite auxiliaries proposed in this book, we make an

important distinction between pronominal clitics and agreement:
Comp
This distinction allows us to account for the phenomenon of multiple exponence,
most apparent in sentences with a first or second person absolutive argument,
which is crossreferenced both by an absolutive clitic and by agreement in T and
C. This analysis of Basque auxiliaries is consistent with a theory of morphology in
which true multiple exponence does not exist, a central desideratum according to
Distributed Morphology.
Previous accounts take a different route in accounting for the multiple exponence
puzzle. Specifically, our clitic/agreement split corresponds (roughly) to a split be-
tween person and number agreement in previous literature (i.a. Laka 1993a; Albizu
and Eguren 2000; Fernndez and Albizu 2000; Rezac 2006, 2008c). Consider, for
instance, the following auxiliary60:
(106) g -aitu -0/
60 The auxiliary in (106) surfaces as ga(i)txu in Lekeitio and Ondarru due to palatalization
(Sect. 3.6.3).
In our analysis, g- is a proclitic doubling a first plural absolutive argument, and the
root -aitu- is the exponent of T, which agrees with that same argument. In previous
accounts, these exponents are analyzed as follows:
(107) g- and -aitu- in previous analyses
a. g-: person agreement
b. -aitu- is decomposed into exponents realizing three separate mor-
phemes:
(i) -a-: tense/theme
(ii) -it-: number agreement
(iii) -u-: auxiliary root
Another evident difference between our analysis and previous ones that becomes ap-
parent in (107) is the decomposition of what we have identified as a tense/agreement
morpheme (the root) into instead three separate morphemes.61 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
significant differences between particular analyses that adopt (107), they share these
assumptions to at least some extent, and the discussion below abstracts away from
these differences among them.
Consider first the claim that Basque verbal morphology has separate exponents
for person and number agreement. Specifically, what in our analysis are clitics
specified for both person and number are analyzed as the realization of person
(not number) agreement. The relevant exponents are shown in Table 3.11 (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 specified as second
person but syncretic for singular and plural, and third person -0/-o/-ko/-tz
/ are also
syncretic for number. However, first singular n-/-da/-t and first plural g-/-(g)u/-ku
are clearly specified for number.62 This irregular pattern of syncretism is expected in
an analysis like ours where the relevant terminal nodes are specified for both types
of features, while 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.
61 This type of analysis is explicitly argued for in classical accounts of Basque verbal morphology,
such as de Azkue (1925:Chap. 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 finite verbs in the references cited above.
62 This is not so clear for proclitic absolutive n- (first singular) and g- (first plural); an anonymous
reviewer suggests that their apparent specification for number could be handled in terms of
contextual allomorphy that is sensitive to the absolutive agreement features on adjacent T.
However, this number distinction in first person proclitic exponents holds even for ergatives
and datives that undergo Metathesis and Doubling to auxiliary-initial position (Sects. 5.45.6 in
Chap. 5). T does not agree with these clitics, and thus requires specification of number in the
proclitic position.
Table 3.11 Basque pronominal clitics

Ergative Dative
Absolutivea Lekeitio Ondarru Zamudio Lekeitio Ondarru Zamudio
1Sg n- -t/-da -t/-da -t/-da -t/-da -t -t
1Pl g- -gu -gu -u -ku -ku -ku
2Sg s- -su -su -su -tzu -tzu -tzu
2Pl s-. . . -e -su-e -su-e -su-e -tzu-e -tzu-e -tzu-e
3Sg -0/-o
/ -0/ -0/-o
/ -ko/-tz -ko/-tz -ko/-tz
3Pl -0-e/-o-e
/ -0-e
/ -0-e/-o-e
/ -ko-e/-tz-e -ko-e/-tz-e -ko-e/-tz-e
a Absolutive forms are identical in Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio
The other part of this standard analysis, namely the claim that Basque auxil-
iaries contain dedicated plural agreement morphemes, is intimately related to the
decomposition of the root illustrated with the auxiliary gaitu (106) above. As shown
in (107), the root is standardly decomposed into three morphemes: (1) tense/theme,
(2) plural (number) agreement, and (3) an auxiliary root. This decomposition might
be apparent in some specific cases, but we argue below that it is very difficult 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 first position is an exponent
typically realized by a vowel (-a- in gaitu) that realizes tense features.63 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 transitives (both with several allomorphs, cf. intransitive -as (56b) and -ara-
(57b) and transitive -au- (64b) and -endu- (65a) in Lekeitio). In our analysis, this is
reflected in the feature [have] inserted postsyntactically in T (Sect. 3.4.1).64
This decomposition of the auxiliary encounters several difficulties. Consider, for
instance, the root exponents -au- (64b) and -o- (66) in Lekeitio, which surface
in present tense auxiliary transitives with third singular agreement (the other two
63 This vowel is -a- in the present and -e- in the past: cf. our entries for -au- (81b) and -eu- (83b)
in Ondarru. It can also be -in-, cf. Ondarru -indu- (80a). In some analyses, tense is assumed to be
realized as a suffix at the end of the auxiliary (Laka 1993a; Albizu and Eguren 2000; Fernndez
and Albizu 2000; Albizu 2002; Rezac 2006, 2008c), in order to account for the exponent -n in
the past tense (see Sect. 2.6 in Chap. 2 and Sect. 3.6.1 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:Chap. 1, 38, Chap. 2, 2430). In any case, the form of these exponents
is clearly dependent on tense features.
64 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 Sect. 1.4.5 in Chap. 1 for justification).
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 unified 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 first singular present transitive -a-
(63a) 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.65
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 (106)(107), where the string -it- 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 (64a) and Zamudio (90a))
and -oitu- (Ondarru (81a)). 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, the root material contains both person and number agreement
features, not just number.
The plural clitic exponent -e and complementizer agreement -s are also com-
monly 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 (and not part of the root). However, as shown
in Sect. 3.3.6, their fairly complex distribution receives a natural account under the
hypothesis that the basic distinction to be made among morphemes crossreferencing
arguments is between pronominal clitics and agreement, not between person and
number.
To summarize, previous accounts differ from ours in two respects: they posit
that (1) person and number agreement features are in separate morphemes and
(2), that the root is decomposable into several morphemes. Although this type
of analysis might be possible, the complexities involved 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
65 Intransitive auxiliaries raise similar issues. For instance, the exponent of the present tense
intransitive is -as- (72c) in the first singular and -a- (74) 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.
paradigm. For instance, so-called plural -it- is absent in past tense transitives in
Ondarru and Zamudio.66 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 Sects. 3.4.2 and 3.4.3. More
specifically, several of the distributional patterns discussed above are accounted
for by hypothesizing a set of morphophonologically atomic transitive present T
exponents whose distribution depends on both person and number: -a- for first
singular, -aitu- for other participants, (-o)itu- for third plural, -au- for third person,
and default -o-.67 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, al-
though this book deals exclusively with finite auxiliaries, a few Basque lexical verbs
have finite forms (Sect. 1.4.5 in Chap. 1). The morphology of these finite forms do
provide evidence that some decomposition of root material is needed. Consider, for
instance, the verb jun go in Ondarru, whose finite forms are listed in Table 3.12.68
These forms have pieces that are readily identifiable in our analysis, and they surface
in the expected position. The first 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 (44) in Sect. 3.3.5 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
66 One might be tempted to explain this by appealing to the presence of the complementizer
agreement exponent -s in past tense auxiliaries (see Table A.6 in Appendix A), which can be
analyzed as a plural marker (though see Sect. 3.3.6 and footnote 67 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 A.3 in Appendix A
have both -it- and -s).
67 Note that one of the exponents containing so-called plural -it-, -aitu-, is specified for person,
not number. The main reason for this is that -aitu- is the realization of second singular as well
as first and second plural (Sect. 3.4.2). Its distribution thus seems independent of number. This
is reminiscent of the fact that the complementizer agreement exponent -s realizes both second
singular and first, second, and third plural. As discussed in Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 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.
68 The string -i-u- surfaces as -ixu-, due to a regular epenthesis rule (Hualde 2003e:4849). The
final complementizer exponent -n surfaces as -en when preceded by a consonant, e.g. g-i-u-s-n
gixusen (Sect. 3.6.1).
Table 3.12 Finite forms of jun go in Ondarru

1 singular 1 plural 2 singular 2 plural 3 singular 3 plural
Present n-u g-u-s s-u-s s-u-s-e d-u d-u-s
Past n-i-u-n g-i-u-s-n s-i-u-s-n s-i-u-s-e-n 0-i-u-n
/ 0-i-u-s-n
/
and second singular forms, all of which is as expected (Sect. 3.3.6).69 What would
correspond to the root (T) position in auxiliaries is filled by two clearly distinct
morphemes: the root -u-,70 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 finite verbs. However, this is compatible with our analysis of
finite auxiliaries. The decomposition present in finite 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. On the other hand, auxiliaries have no lexical root,
so the only morpheme present in this position is T. Therefore, finite 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 finite conjugation of lexical verbs
is severely limited, as discussed in Sect. 1.4.5 in Chap. 1, making it difficult to draw
solid conclusions from finite 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 in which the auxiliary
root can be decomposed, or in which person and number agreement are split in
finite forms. However, we are modestly confident that our analysis can be extended
to other Biscayan varieties, and possibly to other dialects. A detailed analysis of all
Biscayan varieties, let alone one including all Basque varieties, is far beyond the
scope of a single volume,71 and confirmation of our conclusions from other dialects
must await further research.72 We contend, however, that the atomic analysis of
auxiliary roots without their postulated subparts is amply justified for the dialects
under study in this book.
69 The relative position of -e and -s is highly variable across Biscayan dialects. In auxiliaries, plural
-e fissioned from an absolutive clitic typically precedes -s, but the order is reversed in some dialects,
as is the case in Table 3.12. See Sect. 5.3 in Chap. 5 for the placement of plural -e within Basque
auxiliaries.
70 The citation form of the verb is j-u-n: the root is -u-, -n is the past participle suffix (the citation
form of verbs is always the past participle), and j- is a prefix that appears in all nonfinite forms of
all verbs of native stock. This prefix is typically e- or i-, but it has become a consonant before some
vowels (Trask 1997:154).
71 See, for instance, the differences in the realization of the root between Lekeitio and Ondarru
discussed in Sect. 3.4.3. These two towns are separated by a 15 km-long road. This gives an idea
of the amount of variation present in Basque auxiliaries.
72 A potential difference between Biscayan and other dialects in the analysis of the root is discussed
in Sect. 3.3.6 above, where we illustrate a specific case in which agreement features are fissioned
from T in a Guipuscoan dialect. It is possible that this analysis can also extend to similar
phenomena in other dialects.
3.6 Phonological Rules 169
3.6 Phonological Rules
Within the grammatical division of labor envisioned throughout this study, the
reader may notice that cross-dialectal uniformity tends to be found earlier in the
computation (e.g. during the syntax), while variation accumulates as one progresses
further along in the Spellout process. Phonology itself is indeed one of the principal
loci of cross-dialectal differences. As the reader can easily check in the tables in
Appendix A, corresponding surface forms vary across the three dialects beyond
what Vocabulary Insertion alone is responsible for. This is due to variation in the
application of several phonological processes. An illustrative such example is the
following:
(108) n -au -0/ -e
CL . A .1. SG - PRS .1. SG - CL . E .3 - CL . E . PL
(109) Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru Zamudio

n-au-e nabe nabe neure
Although the underlying form n-au-e is the same in the three dialects, differences
in the application of certain phonological rules result in the variation observed
on the surface in this particular case. In this example, Zamudio applies two
rules, introduced below as r-Epenthesis (126) and Diphthong Raising (129), 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 syllabified as onset, and surfaces as b due to a Glide
Fortition rule (140) that is absent in Zamudio.
This section gives a phonological analysis of the three dialects that provides an
important ingredient of our account of all of the surface forms of their auxiliaries
(as found in Appendix A). 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 Sect. 1.3.1 in Chap. 1). For instance,
Diphthong Raising (129) takes place in Zamudio, but 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 (199). 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 consulted Gaminde (1984) to inspect 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;
Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1979). Our adoption of this theoretical framework is
mainly for expository purposes, and can be justified 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 specified, the rule applies in all three dialects. Furthermore, sounds in
most of the rules are represented with standardized orthography; where a more
phonologically faithful representation is needed, it is indicated with square brackets.
After each rule, we provide one or two representative examples. At several points
in this section, we refer to specific exponents realizing T and clitics. A full list and
analysis of vocabulary entries for both morpheme types is provided in Sects. 3.33.4
in the present chapter.
We start in Sect. 3.6.1 with rules that have very specific morphological condition-
ing on their application, followed by rules related to syllabification (Sect. 3.6.2) and
other word-internal rules (Sect. 3.6.3). 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 Sect. 3.6.4. Finally,
Sect. 3.6.5 discusses rules that apply across word boundaries.
3.6.1 Morpheme-Specific Rules
We begin with phonological rules that are triggered by specific morphological

exponents, accounting for a good deal of the allomorphic variation among the
dialects.73 The first phonological process to discuss has to do with the allomorphy
of the complementizer exponents -n and -la.74 As discussed in Sect. 2.6 in Chap. 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 in which they are preceded by a vowel: a or e. While
we illustrate this below mostly with -n, the reader should keep in mind that -la has
identical allomorphy patterns.
73 Some of the morpheme-specific rules discussed here can be considered readjustment rules, in
the sense of Halle and Marantz (1993), that is, rules affecting specific morphemes in certain
morphologically defined environments. This is the case, for instance, for r-Epenthesis (126) and
s-Epenthesis (130). While the term readjustment rules is often thought of as being specific to
DM, the phonological processes we posit may be implemented in any model that recognizes
phonological rules that may be restricted to applying within particular morphemes. For this reason,
we avoid the potentially loaded terminology of readjustment rules within the text.
74 As shown below, this is a complex and idiosyncratic phenomenon, and here we only offer some
descriptive remarks. A complete picture may be obtained by inspecting all of the past tense forms
in Appendix A.
The process responsible for this allomorphy can be stated informally as follows:
(110) Precomplementizer Epenthesis (PreC-Epenthesis)
Insert a or e before the complementizer in certain auxiliaries.
It is tempting to account for the distribution of the epenthetic vowel in terms
of syllabification. 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 morpheme-specific rule in (110).
Consider the following example75:
(111) 0/d
/ -eu/o -tz -n
CL . E .3. SG - PST.3. SG - CL . D .3. SG - CPST

0/d-eu/o-tz-
/ 0-n
/ eutzan dotzan otzen
Since the cluster tzn cannot be tautosyllabic in any dialect in Basque, the epenthetic
vowel is expected. In fact, epenthesis always breaks up 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
up consonant clusters in auxiliaries. This phonologically motivated process of
epenthesis is discussed in some detail below.
However, not all complementizer allomorphs containing a vowel can be ex-
plained in terms of syllabification (Hualde et al. 1994:183184). The following
examples illustrate this point76:
(113) g -endu -n
CL . E .1. PL - PST.3. SG - CPST

g-endu-n genduan gendun gendun
(115) s -ina -n
CL . A .2. SG - PST.2. SG - CPST
(116) Underlying Lekeitio Ondarru

s-ina-n siian sian
75 The three dialects have different exponents for the auxiliary-initial clitic and T in this auxiliary,
which is irrelevant for the discussion here.
76 In (115)(116), the middle nasal is palatalized by (186) (Sect. 3.6.3). In Lekeitio, underlying
a is raised to i by Hypermetaphony (131). 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 Sect. 3.4.3).
The Lekeitio examples illustrate the fact that some, but not all,77 V-final exponents
of T trigger epenthesis. Furthermore, this is not limited to Lekeitio78 :
(117) s -ara -n
CL . A .2. SG - PRS .2. SG - CSBJ /CINT
(118) Underlying Lekeitio Zamudio

s-ara-n sarien sarien
An example illustrating the phenomenon in all three varieties is the following:
(119) n -eu -n

n-eu-n neban neban ne[w]en
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):
(121) n -eun -tz -n ne[w]n.tzen (Zamudio)
CL . E .1. SG - PST.3. SG - CL . D .3. SG - CPST
One might be tempted to account for epenthesis in the Lekeitio and Ondarru
examples in (120) 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, the exponent -eu- surfaces as -eb- as the result
of independently motivated processes related to syllabification: u is syllabified as an
onset between vowels, and surfaces as b by Glide Fortition (140) (see Sect. 3.6.2).
This presupposes prior insertion of epenthetic a between [eu] (or [ew]) and -n, which
cannot be motivated by constraints on syllable structure.79 Thus, (120) provides
examples of epenthesis between V-final T and -n in all three dialects.
77 For instance, -aitu- (63b) does not trigger epenthesis in Lekeitio. See the relevant forms in
Tables A.3 and A.6 in Appendix A.
78 The forms in (117)(118) 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 final a in -ara- is raised to i by Hypermetaphony (131). The
corresponding form in Ondarru is s-as-n sasen, with a different exponent for T (Sect. 3.4.3).
79 Furthermore, the underlying form of this morpheme cannot be -eb- in Lekeitio and Ondarru: its
surface form is [eb] when followed by a vowel (120) and [ew] when followed by a consonant, as
in Lekeitio n-e[w]-tzun CL. E.1. SG -PST.3. SG -CL. D .2. SG -CPST. The surfacing of this exponent as
-eb- is thus fully predictable, which shows that the consonant is derived.
One might explain epenthesis before -n in (120) in Lekeitio and Ondarru

by positing underlying -eb- instead of -eu- as the exponent of T (though see
footnote 79). Although it might work for this specific case, this solution is not
valid for the very similar present tense exponent -au-, illustrated in the following
examples80:
(122) 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
syllabification 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 vowel epenthesis not solely motivated by syllable structure between
V-final T and the complementizer.
The examples in (117)(120) 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 specific morphological environment.
Contrasting with neban in (120), these dialects epenthesize e in (122) and in the
following example (as well as (118) in Lekeitio):
(123) dx/g/y -a -ko -s -n
L -PRS.3.PL -CL.D.3.SG -3.PL -CPST
dx/g/y-a-ko-s-n dxakosen gakosen yakosan
Although the two Eastern dialects are identical with respect to which vowel is
inserted in which specific morphological environment, we have not been able to
find any specific 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,81 yakosan (124) is an exception. The reader can verify these
idiosyncrasies by inspecting the past tense forms in Appendix A.
To summarize, it is clear that there are instances of epenthetic vowels before
complementizers 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
80 Relevant Lekeitio examples of d-au containing an overt complementizer can be found in
example (106) in Hualde et al. (1994:184).

81 An example with epenthetic e in Zamudio is in (111)(112). Some apparent exceptions are due
to Vowel Dissimilation (165), which lowers e to a after e (see Sect. 3.6.3).

epenthetic vowels are inserted by the morphologically conditioned PreC-Epenthesis

rule in (110), 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 comple-
mentizers. 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 Sect. 2.6 in Chap. 2). This provides an argument, in addition to
those presented in Sect. 2.6 in Chap. 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. While the alternation between
the three allomorphs -n, -en, -an (or -la, -ela, -ala), all derived from underlying -n
(-la), accounts for much of the surface variation found in the auxiliaries in these
dialects, it is not the only source.
The following two rules, specific to Zamudio, apply in the order shown, and are
responsible for certain allomorphs of the plural clitic exponent -e in this dialect (see
Sect. 3.3.4). Neither rule applies in Lekeitio or Ondarru, where this clitic is always
realized as -e.
(125) i-Epenthesis (Zamudio)
0/ i / C + -e
Condition: -e = (37)
Example: d -o -tz -0/ -e dotzie

Cf. dotze in Lekeitio/Ondarru
(126) r-Epenthesis (Zamudio)
0/ r / X + -e
Condition: X = -au- (90b), -eu- (92b), and -e = (37)
Example: 0/ -eu -e -n euren

CL . E .3 - PST.3. SG - CL . E . PL - CPST
Cf. eben in Lekeitio/Ondarru
r-Epenthesis counterfeeds i-Epenthesis, which explains the absence of epenthetic
i in Zamudio euren (126).82 In other contexts, this plural clitic surfaces as
underlying -e:
(127) g -aitu -0/ -e
CL . A .1. PL - PRS .1. PL - CL . E .3 - CL . E . PL
82 In
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.

g-aitu-e gaitxue gatxue gaitue
Thus, in these contexts, the surface form of -e is the same in the three dialects.83
The following rules also apply in specific 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 first person dative clitics -t and -ku.
(129) Diphthong Raising (Zamudio)
ae/X uY
Condition: X uY is met by certain exponents containing this
diphthong, e.g. -au- (90b), gaur today, etc.84
Example: n -au -0/ neu

CL . A .1 SG - PRS .1. SG - CL . E .3. SG
Cf. nau in Lekeitio/Ondarru
(130) s-Epenthesis85
0/ s / + X +Y
Condition: X is a first person dative clitic, and Y is an ergative clitic in
Lekeitio/Zamudio (null in Ondarru)
Example (Zamudio): d -o -t -0/ dost

Example (Ondarru): g -a -t gasta
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . D .1. SG
Cf. dxat in Lekeitio and dat in Zamudio
The following rule is also triggered by a specific morphological environment, and
applies after PreC-Epenthesis (110), as illustrated in (132).86
83 Note that t in (128) is palatalized in Lekeitio and Ondarru, which triggers deletion of i in the
latter variety (see Sect. 3.6.3).

84 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) and Gaminde (1988, 2002:12).
85 The final a in Ondarru gasta is epenthetic (see Sect. 3.6.2). The Ondarru equivalent of Zamudio
dost is dosta, which also has this final epenthetic vowel. Lekeitio has an absolutive clitic in place of
a dative clitic in this auxiliary, resulting in a very different form: n-au-0/ (see Sect. 2.4.2 in Chap. 2).
86 Note that the intervocalic n in (132) is palatalized progressively by n-Palatalization (186) (see
Sect. 3.6.3). The ordering of this rule with respect to the others is not crucial.
(131) Hypermetaphony (Lekeitio, Zamudio)87

ai/X +V
Condition: Xa = -ina- (57a), -ara- (57b), -ira- (58)
Example: s -ara -e sarie

CL . A .2 - PRS .2. PL - CL . A . PL
(132) s -ina -n (Lekeitio)

CL . A .2. SG - PRS .2. SG - CPST
Underlying s-ina-n
PreC-Epenthesis s-ina-an
Hypermetaphony s-ini-an
n-Palatalization s-ii-an
Surface siian
Epenthesis feeds Hypermetaphony, which justifies 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. Specifically,
i-Epenthesis (125), r-Epenthesis (126) and Diphthong Raising (129) 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 (110), s-Epenthesis (130), and Hypermetaphony (131), ap-
ply 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.88 The processes discussed in the next subsection, related to
syllabification in different ways, further exemplify the Biscayan subdialectal split.
87 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 (184) the end of Sect. 3.6.2). Thus, Hypermetaphony could be restated as raising a to e,
which is later raised to i by MVR. See Chap. 2 (especially p. 64) in Hualde (1991a) for discussion.
In both Lekeitio and Zamudio, Hypermetaphony also applies when the low vowel is stem-final in a
nominal environment and followed by the singular article -a. Ondarru also has this rule, but limited
to the specific environment described in the previous sentence.
88 In particular, s-Epenthesis inserts s before the first 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 (131) is widespread in Biscayan.
3.6.2 Syllabification and Related Processes
A number of phonological processes are intimately related to syllabification.

Although syllable structure obeys the same constraints in Lekeitio, Ondarru and
Zamudio, certain processes that interact with syllabification in different ways
in auxiliaries are responsible for variation reflecting 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 syllabification that are crucial in understanding this variation in the form
of auxiliaries. See Hualde (2003e) for description of syllabification 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 syllabification of high vowels (i, u) when right-
adjacent to other vowels. These are systematically syllabified as codas and surface
as glides [y, w], as in the following auxiliaries89 :
(133) g -aitu -0/
ga[y]tu (Zamudio), ga[y]txu (Lekeitio)
(134) n -au -0/
CL . A .1. SG - PRS .1. SG - CL . E .3. SG
na[w] (Lekeitio/Ondarru), ne[w] (Zamudio)
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:
(135) 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 suffices for our purposes:
(136) Syllabification
In a sequence of two vowels V1 V2 where V2 is a high vowel:
a. If V2 is followed by a vowel, V1 is syllabified as nucleus and V2 as
the onset of the following syllable.
b. Otherwise, V1 is syllabified as nucleus and V2 as coda. Exception: if
the vowel sequence is [ou], it surfaces as [u].
89 The exponent -au- in (134) surfaces as -eu- in Zamudio due to Diphthong Raising (129).
The coronal stop following [y] in the Lekeitio form undergoes Obstruent Palatalization (189)
(Sect. 3.6.3). The corresponding form in Ondarru also undergoes diphthongization and palatal-
ization, but the glide that triggers palatalization is deleted, resulting in gatxu (Sect. 3.6.3).
(137) Glide Formation

When syllabified as part of a coda or onset, [i] [y] and [u] [w].
The examples discussed so far illustrate (136b). (119)(120), repeated below,
provide a relevant example of (136a):
(138) n -eu -n

n-eu-n neban neban ne[w]en
Due to the vowel inserted before -n by PreC-Epenthesis (110), u is syllabified as
an 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:
(140) Glide Fortition (Lekeitio/Ondarru)
[w] [b] in onset position
(141) Lekeitio Ondarru Zamudio
Underlying n-eu-n n-eu-n n-eu-n
PreC-Epenthesis n-eu-an n-eu-an n-eu-en
Syllabification ne.uan ne.uan ne.uen
Glide Formation ne.[w]an ne.[w]an ne.[w]en
Glide Fortition ne.ban ne.ban N/A
Surface neban neban 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:
(142) Underlying Surface
gaua-s gabas at night (instrumental case)
makallau-as makalla[w]as with the cod (comitative case)
For our purposes, the simplified statement of the rule in (140) will suffice.
Another phonological process that interacts with syllabification in an interesting
way is the deletion of certain consonants between vowels. This can be observed
in the Lekeitio and Ondarru counterparts of Zamudio (135). In these dialects,
the surface form is different from Zamudio, due to a minimal difference in the
underlying form of the first plural ergative clitic (-gu in Lekeitio/Ondarru, and -u
in Zamudio; see Sect. 3.3.2):
(143) d -o -gu
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . E .1. PL
(144) Lekeitio Ondarru

d-o-gu dogu/do[w] do[w]
In many Basque dialects, including Lekeitio and Ondarru, the intervocalic voiced
stops [b, d, g] delete90 :
(145) Voiced Stop Deletion (VS-Deletion)
[sonorant, continuant, +voice] 0/ / V 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:
(146) Lekeitio Ondarru English
bi(g)ote bi(g)ote mustache
arpegi/arpe[y] arpe[y] face
In particular, the variation exemplified by arpe(g)i face accounts for the difference
in the surface form of the first plural ergative clitic in (143)(144). Its initial g
is optionally deleted in Lekeitio, but obligatorily in Ondarru. Furthermore, the
resulting vowel sequence is resyllabified as a diphthong. In this particular case,
it results in diphthong [ow], which as shown above, is not a possible output of
initial Syllabification (136). In Zamudio du (135), initial Syllabification prevents
the surfacing of underlying ou as a diphthong. However, this diphthong is possible
in Lekeitio and Ondarru as the result of syllable repair fed by VS-Deletion, at which
point the ban on diphthong [ow] no longer applies.
(147) Zamudio Lekeitio/Ondarru
Underlying d-o-u d-o-gu
Syllabification du do.gu
VS-Deletion do.u
Resyllabification do[w]
Surface du 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 first plural ergative clitic
results in the attested difference in the surface form of the auxiliary.
Note that the first 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.91 Evidence that g is present in its underlying
90 As in all Basque dialects, intervocalic voiced stops that are not deleted are spirantized to [B,
D, G]. Furthermore, intervocalic d can also undergo Flapping (196) 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.
91 The clitic can surface with the consonant in Lekeitio, in which deletion of g is optional.
form comes from its interaction with vowel epenthesis in this dialect and in Lekeitio,
which can be stated informally as follows:
(148) a-Epenthesis (Lekeitio, Ondarru)
Syllable repair in auxiliaries: insert a in nucleus.
Consider the following auxiliary:
(149) d -o -tz -gu
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . D .3. SG - CL . E .1. PL

d-o-tz-gu 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 justifies the claim that the exponent of the first
plural clitic is -gu in both dialects: a is inserted to syllabify the cluster tzg.92 As
illustrated in this example, a-Epenthesis feeds VS-Deletion.
The same type of interaction between vowel epenthesis and VS-Deletion can be
observed in Zamudio:
(151) 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 feeds application of VS-Deletion.93

Note that the epenthetic vowel in (151) is e, not a. This difference in vowel
epenthesis between Zamudio and the other two dialects is more general:
(152) e-Epenthesis (Zamudio)
Syllable repair in auxiliaries: insert e in nucleus.
(153) d -o -tz -t

d-o-tz-t dotzat dotzat dotzet
(155) d -o -tz -su

d-o-tz-su dotzasu dotzasu dotzesu
92 This auxiliary surfaces as dotzu in Zamudio: the ergative clitic -u has no initial consonant, so no
epenthesis is required.
93 This auxiliary contains the allomorph -da for the first singular ergative clitic (Sect. 3.3.2).
The surface form of this clitic exponent is subject to some dialectal variation. See discussion
under (196) in Sect. 3.6.3.
See below for further comments on variation in the vowel inserted by epenthesis.
As stated in rules (148) and (152), vowel epenthesis is a case of category-specific
phonotactics. Although vowel epenthesis is common across 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 the affricate tz becomes a fricative before
a consonant (except s), and the sequence tz-s is simplified to tz. These processes
apply word-internally as well as across word boundaries. The following Lekeitio
examples are illustrative (Hualde et al. 1994:33)94:
(157) a. aberatz aberas-tu
rich rich-PRF become rich
b. matz politt-a maspolitta
grape pretty.ABS.SG
the pretty grape
c. matz santarr-a matzantarra
grape dirty.ABS.SG
the dirty grape
However, epenthetic a (Lekeitio/Ondarru) or e (Zamudio) is inserted consistently in
auxiliaries. Word-final tz triggers the same epenthetic process in auxiliaries95:
(158) d -o -tz -0/ dotza (Ondarru)
Outside of auxiliaries, the pattern with this affricate is different, as exemplified

in (157).
Another consonant cluster that triggers epenthesis is stC. This can be observed
in auxiliaries such as (159)(160) with the -st allomorph of the first singular
dative clitic (see discussion of s-Epenthesis (130) above). When followed by a
consonant, -st triggers vowel epenthesis (which entails that s-Epenthesis feeds vowel
epenthesis)96:
(159) d -o -t -su
94 Todol (1992:139142) and Cardinaletti and Repetti (2008:534541) argue that similar morpho-
logically conditioned epenthetic repairs are needed in Valencian Catalan and some Northern Italian
languages, respectively.
95 Lekeitio and Zamudio do not have any relevant examples. In particular, the ergative clitic in (158)
is realized as allomorph -o (23c) in these dialects (see Sect. 3.3.2), resulting in dotzo.
96 In Lekeitio, the first singular clitic in (159) is morphologically absolutive, and therefore realized
as proclitic n- (Sect. 2.4.2 in Chap. 2). The past tense counterpart of this auxiliary provides a
relevant example from this dialect: 0-eu-t-su-n
/ L-PST.3. SG -CL. D .1. SG -CL. E.2. SG -CPST surfaces
as eustasun.
(160) Ondarru Zamudio

d-o-t-su dostasu dostesu
Although the cluster st triggers vowel epenthesis before a consonant in the three
dialects, they differ with respect to word-final position. Ondarru has epenthesis in
this context, but Zamudio does not:97
(161) d -o -t -0/
(162) Ondarru Zamudio

d-o-t-0/ dosta 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)98 :
(163) bost bost-garren bosgarren
five fifth
Finally, the first singular enclitic allomorph -t, which can be dative or ergative
(Sect. 3.3.2), triggers epenthesis when followed by a consonant99:
(164) 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-
specific phonotactics and are subject to some dialectal variation.100
97 The allomorph -st of the first singular dative clitic in Lekeitio never surfaces in word-final
position, because in the relevant auxiliaries this clitic is morphologically absolutive, and therefore
realized as proclitic n- (Sect. 2.4.2 in Chap. 2). There are thus no relevant examples of auxiliaries
with word-final st in this dialect.
98 These examples can be found in Hualde et al. (1994:249) for Lekeitio and Gaminde
(2000:360361) for Zamudio.

99 In Lekeitio and Ondarru, the first singular ergative clitic in this example is realized with a
different entry, -da (see Table 3.3 on p. 125). Since this does not result in a consonant cluster,
no epenthetic vowel is inserted. See Table A.3 in Appendix A.
100 Another case of epenthesis occurs in Lekeitio n-eu-s-n CL. E.1. SG -PST.3. PL-3. PL-CPST
nebasan. The first 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 followed by a consonant s. The preceding vowel becomes b by later application of Glide
Formation (137) and Glide Fortition (140). 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
up a consonant cluster, and must be due to a morphologically conditioned epenthesis rule that
applies in this form.
In most epenthesis examples above, the 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-final position. Thus, one might argue that
these clitic exponents are in fact -tza/tze and -sta/ste underlyingly.101
However, two arguments can be made 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 (164). 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 provided by Gaminde (1984:Vol. 1, 493498, Vol. 2,
5562) for these clitics when followed by the second singular ergative clitic -su in
the present tense, the correlation is nearly perfect. Out of 119 varieties, only eight
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 one to capture this
correlation.
Zamudio has a dissimilation rule that is fed by the epenthetic process described
above102:
(165) Vowel Dissimilation (Zamudio)
e a / e C0
(166) d -o -tzu -e -t -s (Zamudio)
L - PRS .3. PL - CL . D .2 - CL . D . PL - CL . E .1. SG -3. PL
(167) Underlying d-o-tzu-e-t-s

e-Epenthesis d-o-tzu-e-t-es
Vowel Dissimilation d-o-tzu-e-t-as
Surface dotzuetas
101 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 Lekeitio and Ondarru and dotzie in Zamudio.
In an analysis where this clitic has an underlying vowel, it would be deleted by Nonhigh Vowel
Deletion (175) in this context. The analysis would have to posit a special deletion rule for first
person -ste in Zamudio, since it surfaces as -st in final position, as illustrated in (161)(162).
102 Note that this dissimilation rule is somewhat unusual in light of the broad crosslinguistic trend
for low vowels to dissimilate and become mid, rather than for mid vowels to dissimilate to low;
see Keane (2009) for a typological survey.
Vowel Dissimilation is also fed by PreC-Epenthesis (110)103:

(168) n -eun -tz -s -n (Zamudio)
CL . E .1. SG - PST.3. PL - CL . D .3. SG -3.PL -CPST
(169) Underlying n -eun -tz -s -n
PreC-Epenthesis n-eun-tz-s-en
e-Epenthesis n-eun-tze-s-en
Vowel Dissimilation n-eun-tze-s-an
Surface neuntzesan
Interestingly, this rule reduces surface variation among dialects. As discussed above,
the epenthetic vowel used in Zamudio auxiliaries is e, while it is often a in Lekeitio
and Ondarru (see also Sect. 3.6.1 on PreC-Epenthesis). This dialectal distinction is
neutralized in auxiliaries where the epenthetic vowel is preceded by e. Indeed, the
Lekeitio counterpart of (168)(169) has the same epenthetic vowel before -n on the
surface:
(170) n -eu -tz -s -n (Lekeitio)
CL . E .1. SG - PST.3. PL - CL . D .3. SG -3.PL -CPST
(171) Underlying n -eu -tz -s -n
PreC-Epenthesis n-eu-tz-s-an
a-Epenthesis n-eu-tza-s-an
Surface neutzasan
Vowel Dissimilation has morphological constraints on its application not re-
flected in the formulation in (165). Other than in auxiliaries, its effects can be
observed when adding the imperfective participle suffix -ten to (nonfinite) verbs
ending in e104 :
ego-ten egoten be (no context for Dissimilation)
use-ten usetan use
erre-ten erretan burn
103 Note that the second vowel e in surface neuntzesan [newn esan] in (169) is an apparent
exception to Vowel Dissimilation, since it is preceded by e in the previous syllable. The same
is true for the final vowel in neuen [newen] (120). This can be accounted for by ordering Vowel
Dissimilation before LV-Assimilation (199). The latter rule raises a to e when following a high
vowel or glide (see Sect. 3.6.3). Vowel 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 A.6A.8 in Appendix A have a similar analysis.
104 The form erretan is due to Iaki Gaminde (personal communication). The other examples (and
other relevant ones) can be found in Gaminde (2000:369370).

In several other cases where the phonological conditions on the rule are met, it
does not apply. The verb erretan above illustrates this: root-final e does not undergo
Vowel Dissimilation despite the preceding identical vowel, but it does trigger the
rule on the suffixal vowel. In general, the rule does not apply morpheme-internally
(another relevant example is seme son; Gaminde 2000:354). In the nonverbal
domain, some suffixes undergo Vowel Dissimilation, and others do not:
(173) 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
(174) 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 (final -a raised to -e
by LV-Assimilation (199))
We shall maintain the simple formulation of the rule in (165), 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 variation105:
(175) Nonhigh Vowel Deletion (NHV-Deletion)
a. Lekeitio and Zamudio
[high] 0/ / V
b. Ondarru
[high, round] 0/ / V
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 surfaces106 :
(176) s -aitu -e -0/ -e
CL . A .2 - PRS .2. SG - CL . A . PL - CL . E .3 - CL . E . PL

s-aitu-e-e saitxue satxue saitue
105 Most Basque dialects have five vowels: i, e, a, o, u. The formulation of NHV-Deletion (175)
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.
106 Surface variation in these forms is due to palatalization (Sect. 3.6.3).
The variation described in (175) 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:
(178) dx/g/d -a -ko -e
L -PRS.3.SG -CL.D.3 -CL.D.PL
dx/g/d-a-ko-e dxake gakoe dakie
Note that plural -e surfaces as -ie in Zamudio due to i-Epenthesis (125), which
inserts i before plural -e when following a consonant. NHV-Deletion therefore feeds
i-Epenthesis. NHV-Deletion is also ordered before VS-Deletion (145), as illustrated
by (151), repeated here:
(180) d -o -tz -da -s dotzeas (Zamudio)
(181) Underlying d-o-tz-da-s

e-Epenthesis d-o-tze-da-s
NHV-Deletion
VS-Deletion d-o-tze-a-s
Surface dotzeas
Despite preceding a vowel in hiatus, e is not deleted, which means that VS-Deletion
counterfeeds NHV-Deletion.107
Deletion of a in hiatus contexts is harder to find in auxiliaries, due mainly to the
fact that there are not many cases of nonepenthetic a before a vowel. The following
is a relevant example108:
(182) s -ina -e -n (Lekeitio, Ondarru)
CL . A .2 - PST.2. PL - CL . A . PL - CPST

Underlying s-ina-e-n s-ina-e-n
Hypermetaphony s-ini-e-n N/A
NHV-Deletion s-in-e-n
n-Palatalization s-ii-en s-i-en
Surface siien sien
107 The order of e-Epenthesis (152) with respect to NHV-Deletion is not relevant, though both rules
must precede VS-Deletion (see the discussion surrounding (151)).

108 The corresponding auxiliary in Zamudio is different (sintzen), due to a divergence in the
underlying exponent for T (see discussion of intransitive T at the beginning of Sect. 3.4.3).
NHV-Deletion in this auxiliary is illustrated in Ondarru. It is prevented from

applying in Lekeitio due to prior application of Hypermetaphony (131).109
NHV-Deletion is another case of auxiliary-specific phonotactics. In other word
classes, mid vowels are raised before an adjacent vowel in Lekeitio and Ondarru
(Hualde and Gaminde 1998:4546)110:
(184) 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)111:
(185) 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 finite 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 syllabification may result in variation
between the surface forms of auxiliaries in Eastern Biscayan (Lekeitio and Ondarru)
and Western Biscayan (Zamudio). This variation is most apparent in cases of
Glide Fortition (140) and Vowel Dissimilation (165), but can also be observed in
differences in the application of vowel epenthesis. Variation in the application of
NHV-Deletion (175) also follows this dialectal split, but in this case Lekeitio is
exceptional among Eastern varieties in that it deletes o in (178)(179) (Gaminde
1984:Vol. 1, 153154).
109 Nonhigh vowels are not deleted before glides, as illustrated in (121), (133)(134), (141),
(168)(169), and (170)(171). This can be accounted for by specifying the vowel in the structural
description in (175) as nonhigh, or by ordering Glide Formation (137) before NHV-Deletion.
110 The Lekeitio examples are from Hualde et al. (1994:3738). Hualde (1991b:6367) contains
additional relevant Ondarru examples.

111 The Lekeitio examples are from Hualde et al. (1994:4546). Hualde (1991b:6367, 7071)
provides relevant Ondarru examples not shown here. Examples of this process in Zamudio can be
found in Gaminde (2000:354), e.g. neska-ak neskak the girls (absolutive case).
3.6.3 Other Phonological Processes
The processes discussed in this subsection are palatalization, Low Vowel Assimi-
lation, Flapping, and Dissimilatory Epenthesis. The first two are common to many
Basque dialects, but variation in their application accounts 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 Chaps. 2 and 4 of Hualde (1991a) and Hualde (2003e:3740).
In many dialects, palatalization affects l and n, only the latter being relevant for
auxiliaries112:
(186) n-Palatalization
n [+high, back] / [+high, back]
The following is a relevant example from Lekeitio and Ondarru113:
(187) g -ina -n
CL . A .1. PL - PST.1. PL - CPST

g-ina-n giian gian
In Lekeitio and Ondarru, coronal obstruents also palatalize in this environment114:
112 Hualde (1991a:110) assumes an autosegmental analysis of phonological features and assimila-
tory processes. He formulates palatalization as spreading of a [dorsal] node from the vowel to a
following [coronal] consonant.
113 Two other processes apply in the Lekeitio auxiliary: PreC-Epenthesis (110) and Hyperme-
taphony (131) (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 Sect. 3.4.3). In this case, the effect
of palatalization of n is undone by Nasal Place Assimilation to the following consonant (Hualde
1991a:112113; Hualde et al. 1994:2829). Words other than auxiliaries illustrate n-Palatalization
in this dialect: inos ios never (Gaminde 2000:363).
114 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).
(189) Obstruent Palatalization (Lekeitio, Ondarru)115

[sonorant, coronal] [+high, back] / [+high, back]
(190) s -aitu -t
CL . A .2. SG - PRS .2. SG - CL . E .1. SG

s-aitu-t sa[y]txut satxut
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 (137)).
Furthermore, the triggering glide is deleted in Ondarru.116
Obstruent Palatalization can also be triggered by a preceding palatalized sonorant
consonant, as in the following Ondarru example117:
(192) s -indu -0/ -s -n siddusen (Ondarru)
CL . A .2. SG - PST.2. SG - CL . E .3. SG -2.SG -CPST
Interestingly, d, as opposed to t, can only palatalize if the trigger is a sonorant
consonant. See Hualde (1991a:108111) for discussion.
Although subject to many exceptions and dialectal variation, Obstruent Palatal-
ization can also affect the dental affricate tz. In the case of auxiliaries, it undergoes
palatalization in Ondarru, but not in Lekeitio118:
(193) n -itz -n
CL . A .1. SG - PST.1. SG - CPST

n-itz-n nitzan nitxan nitzen
115 Palatalized t surfaces as palatal stop tt for older speakers, and as alveopalatal 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
alveopalatal 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 alveopalatal 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).
116 Deletion of glide [y] before a palatal or alveopalatal consonant is a general process in Ondarru.
The present participle ei-ten do-IMP etxen provides an illustrative example.

117 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).
118 In the three dialects, the vowel following tz/tx is inserted by PreC-Epenthesis (110). The
Zamudio form does not undergo Obstruent Palatalization because this dialect lacks this rule
altogether.
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 in Ondarru:
(195) 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)
See also Hualde et al. (1994:130) for relevant forms in Lekeitio.
As shown in Sect. 3.6.2, intervocalic voiced stops are deleted by VS-
Deletion (145). Another rule affecting d in this position in Lekeitio and Ondarru is
the following:
(196) Flapping (Lekeitio, Ondarru)
dr/V V
The first singular clitic exponent -da (22a) in Lekeitio is always subject to flapping:
(197) d -o -tz -da -s dotzaras (Lekeitio)
This Lekeitio form should be compared to its counterpart dotzeas (151) in Zamudio.
Vowel epenthesis applies in both dialects, breaking up the consonant cluster
tzd.119 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 are lenition processes with the same contextual re-
striction (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.120 Unlike Lekeitio, however, the consonant in the clitic exponent -da is
deleted by VS-Deletion.121 Flapping can apply across certain word boundaries, as
shown in the following relevant examples of this rule in Ondarru:
119 The epenthetic vowel is a in Lekeitio and e in Zamudio (Sect. 3.6.2). 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-tza-t. See Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 2 for the distribution of -s, and Sect. 3.3.2 in the present
chapter for the distribution of first singular clitic allomorphs.
120 Hualde (1991a:7677) has some relevant discussion of intervocalic d in Ondarru, including
Flapping, but does not discuss VS-Deletion.

121 See Tables A.3 and A.6 in Appendix A. In all Ondarru forms obtained from our informant, the
consonant in -da is targeted by VS-Deletion. This is also true for the Zamudio data in Gaminde
(2000:373375). Due to gaps in the past monotransitive paradigms found in both sources, some of
the forms in Table A.6 are from de Yrizar (1992b:Vol. 1, 225, 595, 617620). Forms with -da in
this source provide the only exceptions to VS-Deletion in these dialects in Appendix A. We assume
that this is due to idiolectal variation in the application of the rule.
(198) Topa-0/ d -o -t. (>rot)

find-PRF L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.1.SG
Ive found it. (Ondarru, Hualde 1991a:76)
Similar Lekeitio examples are given in Hualde et al. (1994:34).
Another rule affecting the surface form of auxiliaries is Low Vowel Assimilation:
(199) Low Vowel Assimilation (LV-Assimilation; Ondarru/Zamudio)
a e / [+high] C0
(200) 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.122 This is due to the fact
that Ondarru LV-Assimilation can only apply across morpheme boundaries, and the
target vowel must be word-final (Hualde 1991a:6774). This limits the application
of this rule to word-final -C0 a morphemes. The only suffix 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 vowel123 :
(201) d -o -su -la dosule (Ondarru)
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . E .2. SG - CDECL
LV-Assimilation is present in many Basque dialects, and subject to a great deal of

variation in the details of its application (see Chap. 2 in Hualde 1991a). 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 Ondarru124:
(202) 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.
122 The Ondarru counterpart of Zamudio s-ira-n in (200) is s-i-n: the exponent of T does not
have a low vowel in Ondarru auxiliaries (see Sect. 3.4.3). 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.
123 LV-Assimilation can also apply across certain word boundaries. Specifically, it can apply across
a main verb-auxiliary boundary. As expected, the final 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.
124 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).

One context that does meet the structural description of the rule arises in dative
forms of names, with the dative suffix -ri (the flap r is often deleted intervocalically
in Ondarru, under certain conditions that remain unclear):
Iaki-ri Iakiai
Peru-ri Peruai
The rule also applies in auxiliaries where the output of VS-Deletion (145) results in
two adjacent high vowels:
(204) d -o -tzu -gu
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . D .2. SG - CL . E .1. PL

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.125 In Ondarru, (obligatory) VS-Deletion
feeds Dissimilatory Epenthesis, and the resulting vowel cluster is resyllabified as
[u.aw]:
(206) Underlying d-o-tzu-gu
VS-Deletion d-o-tzu-u
Diss. Epenthesis d-o-tzu-au
Surface dotzuau
This concludes our presentation of each one of the phonological processes that yield
the surface forms of the auxiliaries under study.
3.6.4 Rule Interaction
Table 3.13 provides a list of all phonological rules discussed up to this point,
showing what dialect they apply in.126 Several rules apply in specific derivational
order, as discussed throughout this section. These derivational interactions are
indicated with arrows in the table.127 As is apparent in the table, while variation
125 Sequences of identical vowels are common in Lekeitio due to a total assimilatory process unique
to this variety. See discussion at the end of Sect. 3.6.5.

126 Vowel Epenthesis in the table conflates a-Epenthesis (148) from Lekeitio and Ondarru with
e-Epenthesis (152) from Zamudio. The check mark for Hypermetaphony in Ondarru is placed
between parentheses because although this rule applies in this dialect, it does not do so in
auxiliaries (see footnote 87).
127 We do not make any claim about derivational order that is not entailed by the arrows in this
table.
Table 3.13 Phonological rules

Lekeitio Ondarru Zamudio
Diphthong Raising
PreC-Epenthesis
Hypermetaphony ()
Syllabification
Glide Formation
Glide Fortition
s-Epenthesis
Vowel Epenthesis
Flapping
NHV-Deletion
i-Epenthesis
r-Epenthesis
VS-Deletion
Dissimilatory Epenthesis
Vowel Dissimilation
LV-Assimilation
n-Palatalization
Obstruent Palatalization
can be due to the presence or absence of particular rules in the dialects, it is never
the result of differences in the order of rule application.
Interaction among these rules is mostly non-opaque. Specifically, 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 (183)). We have described
four different cases of opaque rule interaction. The first two are counterfeeding
relations: r-Epenthesis counterfeeds i-Epenthesis, and VS-Deletion counterfeeds
NHV-Deletion (see discussion around (125)(126) and (180), 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 configuration
CVCV; this creates a potential context for VS-Deletion, which deletes voiced stops
between vowels. As illustrated in (149)(150), 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.128 Finally,
Vowel Dissimilation also feeds LV-Assimilation in an opaque way: as discussed in
footnote 103, the auxiliary neuen is an apparent exception to Vowel Dissimilation
128 Bakovic (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 allowed the
former to apply.
because the latter rule feeds LV-Assimilation in this auxiliary, which in turn undoes
the effect of Vowel Dissimilation.
3.6.5 Rules that Apply Across Word Boundaries
We conclude this section with a discussion of a number of phonological processes

applying across the boundary between the auxiliary and the preceding word. These
are not apparent in any citation form given here, or in the data in Appendix A.
However, their effect is visible in many of the full sentence examples given
throughout this book. This is especially true for Ondarru, in which 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 specific restrictions having to do with the features of both the first 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.129 The following are relevant examples
from Zamudio:
(207) Ollo-ak, orr-ek es d -ira (>tire) orr-en arin
chicken-ABS.PL that-ABS.PL not L -PRS.3.PL that-GEN.SG quickly
ei-ten sar.
do-IMP old
Chickens, they dont grow old so quickly.
(208) Len ur-ik es g -endu -n (>kendun) euk-i
before water-PART not CL.E.1.PL -PST.3.SG -CPST have-PRF
etze-atan.
house-IN.PL
Before, we didnt use to have water in the houses.
129 Auxiliaries are typically immediately preceded by a participle in affirmative sentences and
by negative es in negative sentences. Only a few modal particles can intervene between the
participle/es and the auxiliary (Sect. 5.7.3 in Chap. 5). 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 Sect. 1.4.5 in Chap. 1)
undergo devoicing when following a word ending in a voiceless stop (see Hualde 2003e:40; Hualde
et al. 1994:32 for examples.)
The process also applies to auxiliaries optionally in Lekeitio and Ondarru, but g is
never devoiced130:
(209) 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. (Ondarru)
(210) Gu-0/ es g -as (>gas/*kas) ju-n Bilbo-a.
we-ABS not CL.A.1.PL -PRS.1.PL go-PRF Bilbao-ALL
We havent gone to Bilbao. (Ondarru)
Although bilabial b is devoiced across word boundaries, no auxiliary in this dialect
starts with this consonant.131
A number of deletion processes apply optionally in the participle-auxiliary
boundary in Lekeitio (Hualde et al. 1994:48) and Zamudio. First, the final -n present
in several participle suffixes is deleted when preceding a vowel-initial auxiliary:
(211) Dxa-n 0/ -eu -n. (>dxa eban)
eat-PRF CL.E.3.SG -PST.3.SG -CPST
She ate. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:48)
(212) Bonete-agas jo-ten
hat-COM.SG hit-IMP
0/ -o -ku -0/ -n (>jote oskun).
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . D .1. PL - CL . E .3. SG - CPST
He used to hit us with his hat. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:285)
Participle-final -n can also be deleted before certain consonant-initial auxiliaries132 :
(213) 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)
(214) Urreski-ek ekar-ten
hazelnut-ABS.PL bring-IMP
s -endu -s -n. (>ekarte sendusen)
CL . E .2. SG - PST.3. PL -3. PL - CPST
You(Sg) brought the hazelnuts. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:151)
130 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).

131 The only exception is auxiliaries starting with the modal (conditional) particle ba (Sect. 5.7.3 in
Chap. 5). The initial consonant in this particle undergoes devoicing in the relevant context (Hualde
2003e:42; Hualde et al. 1994:46).
132 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.
Most d-initial auxiliaries also trigger deletion of participle-final -n, which feeds
obligatory deletion of d by VS-Deletion (145)133:
(215) Esa-n d -o -t. (>esa ot)
say-PRF L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.1.SG
Ive said so. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:48)
(216) Lauso-a esa-ten d -o -tz -u (>esate otzu)
lauso-ABS.SG say-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.D.3.SG -CL.E.1.PL
gu-k.
we-ERG
We call it lauso.134 (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:249)
Auxiliary-initial vowels are deleted optionally after a vowel in Zamudio (the vowel
preceding the past tense complementizer -n on the surface in the auxiliary is inserted
by PreC-Epenthesis; see Sect. 3.6.1):
(217) 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.
This process can be fed by deletion of participle-final -n:
(218) Baso-ari su-0/
forest-DAT.SG fire-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 fire. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:332)
(219) Ori-0/ txarriboda dusti-etan
that-ABS.SG pig.slaughter.feast all-ALL.PL
kante-tan 0/ -eu -n (>kanteta uen) ar-ek.
sing-IMP CL.E.3.SG -PST.3.SG -CPST that-ERG.SG
He used to sing that at all pig slaughter feasts.
133 According to Hualde et al. (1994:48), deletion of participle-final -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 (215) with
the exception of the ergative clitic, which is first 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 possess this idiosyncratic restriction as well.
134 This sentence is given as part of a description of squinting (lauso in Zamudio) in Gaminde
(2000:249).
The following example from Zamudio illustrates these deletion processes interact-
ing in the same auxiliary: deletion of participle-final -n (ite dosu), followed by
deletion of auxiliary-initial d- (VS-Deletion, ite osu), followed by deletion of the
auxiliary-initial vowel (ite su).
(220) Barre i-ten d -o -su? (>ite su)
laugh do-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.2.SG
Do you(Sg) laugh? (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:96)
All these deletion processes also apply in Ondarru. The following are relevant
examples135:
(221) Deletion of participle-final -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. (Ondarru)
(222) 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. (Ondarru)
(223) Deletion of participle-final -n followed by deletion of auxiliary-initial
vowel
Ja-n 0/ -eu -n. (>ja ban/*jan eban/*ja eban)
He ate. (Ondarru)
(224) Deletion of participle-final -n followed by VS-Deletion, followed by
deletion of auxiliary-initial vowel
Barre-0/ e-txen
laugh-ABS do-IMP
d -o -su. (>etxe su/*etxen dosu/*etxe osu)
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . E .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 vowel136:
135 Deletion of participle-final -n does not apply before the auxiliaries d-o-t, d-o-gu, d-au-0 / and
d-a-u-0/ (>dabe; see footnote 133 for a similar restriction in Lekeitio). When following a vowel,
the initial d is typically flapped, as in (198).
136 This process applies in other syntactic contexts as well. See Hualde and Elordieta (1992),
Hualde et al. (1994:4142), Elordieta (1997) and 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
(225) Apur-tu 0/ -eu -n. (>uban)

break-PRF CL.E.3.SG -PST.3.SG -CPST
He broke it. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:41)
This rule can be fed by deletion of participle-final -n:
(226) Dxa-n 0/ -eu -n. (>dxa aban)
He ate. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:42)
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 the contribution of several distinct grammatical components. The first source of
variation comes from differences in vocabulary entries and Impoverishment rules.
The second way in which auxiliaries may vary results from differences in the appli-
cation of several phonological rules (though not in the order of phonological rules,
which is invariant in the three dialects). Much 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 specific 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 terms of rules applying across word boundaries. These latter
processes are not as well-documented in the literature, and the extent to which
these differences reflect any larger dialectal subdivisions in Biscayan is yet to be
determined.
3.7 Conclusion
The analysis of the Spellout of Basque finite 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 that cross-reference arguments in the clause are both of the pronominal
clitic and the agreement type. The analysis in this chapter shows that this claim
undergo VS-Deletion when preceded by a vowel, but not assimilation. For instance, underlying
esa-n d-o-t in (215) can surface as esaot, but not as *esoot.
3.7 Conclusion 199
and others concerning the morphosyntax of finite 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 are explicit enough to be easily checked against auxiliary systems in other
varieties. We expect that much 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 specific claims
concerning the workings of Vocabulary Insertion. These find 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 have shown 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 be referred to at VI (discharged) only once. While the Basque auxiliary
paradigm is replete with apparent cases of multiple exponence, 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 enable
an explanation of all of the patterns of neutralization found across the paradigm
in terms of Impoverishment rules and underspecification in the morphosyntactic
feature specification of vocabulary entries.
Chapter 4
Deletion Operations Targeting Morphological
Markedness
4.1 Introduction
Mismatches between syntax and morphology can occur when, for example, a
second person ergative pronoun is present in a clause, and indeed everything about
the clause reflects the syntactic activity of this argument within the syntax and
semantics, but nonetheless the verb agreement for second person is seemingly
mysteriously missing from its expected place on the auxiliary verb. This chapter
focuses on feature-deletion and terminal-deletion operations (called Impoverish-
ment and Obliteration, respectively) that are present with the postsyntactic Feature
Markedness module, which in our overall serial and modular architecture is ordered
before Linearization and Vocabulary Insertion. We introduce the theoretical back-
ground for Impoverishment and Obliteration in Sects. 4.2 and 4.5 and exemplify the
phenomenon of Impoverishment with relatively simple cases in Sects. 4.3 and 4.4.
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 Sects. 4.6 and 4.7. 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] feature in Basque, discussed in Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4.1.
Towards the end of the chapter, a globally-consistent order for all Impoverishment
and Obliteration rules proposed within the book is offered in Sect. 4.8, highlighting
the modularized organization of such rules into distinct blocks.

202 4 Deletion Operations Targeting Morphological Markedness
4.2 Distinctions Among Types of Postsyntactic Deletion

Operations
We localize Impoverishment within the Feature Markedness module. Markedness

refers to morphosyntactic (abstract) markedness, not to the vocabulary entries
themselves (and whether they are, say, phonologically null or not). Moreover, mor-
phosyntactic markedness of specific features may be context-sensitive; for example,
[participant] might 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 vs. markedness-triggered
Impoverishment vs. Obliteration
feature deletion vs. feature reversal
absolute neutralization vs. contextual neutralization
paradigmatic structural description vs. syntagmatic structural description
The difference between markedness-targeted and markedness-triggered deletion has
to do with the structural change. This distinction, discussed at length in Nevins
(2011a), refers to whether a deletion operation whose structural description men-
tions a marked feature-value [ F] in fact deletes [ F] itself (markedness-targeted),
or whether it deletes an orthogonal feature to [F], e.g. [ G] (markedness-triggered).
For example, a neutralization of the dual/plural distinction in a particular class
of nouns is markedness-targeted, where [ F] is [augmented]. By contrast, the
frequent crosslinguistic neutralization of gender distinctions in the first person is
a case of markedness-triggered Impoverishment, where [ F] is [+author] and [ G]
is [feminine].
Impoverishment vs. Obliteration also 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
1 Redundancy rules also may involve insertion of individual featurese.g. the operations that insert
default values, such as Halle and Marantzs (1994) rules of inserting inflectional class features. In
fact, our approach to Case (outlined in Chaps. 12) treats absolutive as a default case, which we
implement in terms of it not being determined in the syntax, but an epenthetic postsyntactic
feature-insertion (of [peripheral, motion]), in the sense of Trommer (2010).
4.2 Distinctions Among Types of Postsyntactic Deletion Operations 203
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.
The distinction between feature deletion and reversal has to do with the structural
change in Impoverishment rules that affect features. While both types of rules are
Impoverishment in the sense that they result in overall reduction of markedness,
deletion rules remove the targeted feature with the marked value, but reversal rules
change the feature to its unmarked value. The latter type of rule is illustrated by Past
Participant T Impoverishment in Lekeitio (Sect. 3.4.2 in Chap. 3)2 :
(2) Past Participant T Impoverishment (Lekeitio)
This rule of Impoverishment changes the value of the feature [past] from marked
+ to unmarked (see Sect. 4.3 for our view of markedness in feature values).
We implement feature reversal as a two step procedure that first deletes the value
of the targeted feature (rather than the whole feature-value pair), and then inserts
the unmarked value3 :
(3) Feature reversal as deletion and insertion of unmarked value
a. Deletion of marked value: [mF] [F]
b. Insertion of unmarked value: [F] [uF]
In the specific case of (2), the structural change proceeds as follows:
(4) The two steps in Past Participant T Impoverishment
a. [++ past, +participant] [past, +participant]
b. [past, +participant] [ past, +participant]
We thus view both feature deletion and feature reversal Impoverishment as involving
deletion: of the entire feature in the first case, and of the value in the second case
(followed by insertion); see also Harbour (2003) for discussion of the necessity
of this distinction. Note that the difference between deleting an entire feature and
deleting its value (followed by insertion of the unmarked value) is arguably only
relevant for markedness-targeted Impoverishment rules, in which a marked value
has been deleted. By hypothesis, these reversal rulesinsertion of the opposite,
unmarked value following the deletion of the marked valuemust occur because all
features that are present in a representation need specification for a value.4 For ease
2 See the following two sections for examples of feature deletion rules.
3 In (3), u stands for the unmarked value of the feature F, and m for the marked value.
4 In Nevins (2007) it was argued that impersonal pronouns are distinct from third person pronouns
in that the former remain unspecified for their values of [ author, participant]. However, it may
be the case that what impersonals are missing is not the value for such features, but rather lack
these features altogether.
of exposition, we collapse the structural description of reversal rules to the more

compact format in (2b) throughout the book, but the reader should be aware that
we view this type of rule as effecting a specific type of deletion, like all other
Impoverishment rules. We also informally refer to both types of Impoverishment as
feature deletion rules, with the understanding that some of them specifically target
feature values.
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 specific contexts. For example, the feature [colloquial] is
never distinguished in the plural second person in Basque (Sect. 4.3.1). By contrast,
the feature [singular] is neutralized in Basque in very specific contexts (Sect. 4.7).
Paradigmatic vs. syntagmatic structural description will be discussed at length
in Sects. 4.3 and 4.4. The reason for extensive emphasis and exemplification of the
latter is that syntagmatic markedness has received less overall attention in studies
of neutralizationperhaps because it takes more study of various external contexts
in order to detectand because our two principal case studies in Sects. 4.6 and 4.7
are syntagmatic in nature. We hypothesize that all paradigmatic-based deletion rules
apply as a block before all syntagmatic-based deletion rules. We assume this order
throughout this chapter, and Sect. 4.8 provides an overview of all Impoverishment
and Obliteration rules proposed in this book that confirms this hypothesis.
4.3 Paradigmatic Markedness
Paradigmatic markedness is based on the feature values that occupy a single

terminal node, without reference to the content of other terminals. Among the person
and number features we have thus far considered, the following feature values are
context-free marked:
(5) [author]: marked value = +

[participant]: marked value = +
[singular]: marked value =
[past]: marked value = +
Marked feature values asymmetrically undergo and cause more neutralization

than their unmarked counterparts. Thus, for example, past tense may show fewer
agreement distinctions than present tense, or gender may be neutralized in the
first person but not in the third person. In the representations above, while
we do not employ feature-geometric grouping of the -features (of the sort
in Harley and Ritter (2002), for instance), certain aspects of such representations
would be compatible with the analyses herein. Morphosyntactic feature geometries
typically have two properties: (1) a hierarchical and constituent-based grouping
representing the features that pattern together and the asymmetric dependencies
4.3 Paradigmatic Markedness 205
that they may have with each other, and (2) a privative-style representation in
which markedness is encoded by more nodes in the tree. Our proposals would
be fully compatible with the former characteristic, and we have omitted such
elaborations largely to simplify the expositionit certainly may be the case that
the two features [author] and [participant] are grouped into a constituent to the
exclusion of others, and with a dependency relation among them. However, the
latter characteristic, namely a commitment to privative person features, is clearly
untenable for the many analyses throughout this book that require explicit reference
to third person, which cannot be achieved if it is literally devoid of any featural
representation (a point made at length in Nevins (2007)).
Markedness, therefore, is represented not by the presence or absence of privative
features, but rather by the specific binary value that a given node may possess,
as shown in (5). The justification for the marked status of these particular feature
values can be found in various places in the literature (e.g. Greenberg 1966; Noyer
1992; Harley and Ritter 2002; Nevins and Parrott 2010), and are echoed throughout
Basque as well. For example, Plural Clitic Impoverishment effects a neutralization
from plural to singular (see Sect. 4.7 below), and past tense auxiliary forms show
a neutralization to present in Lekeitio (Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4.2). As the neutralization
of plural to singular and past to present are relatively well-understood, we focus
in this chapter on the more novel instances of context-sensitive markedness and
syntagmatic neutralization. Nonetheless, in the following two subsections, we cover
two phenomena of paradigmatic markedness particular to Basque.
4.3.1 Formal/Colloquial Neutralization
We turn to a neutralization pattern found throughout Basque pronominal and

inflectional systems, but revealed only in dialects that have a formal/colloquial
distinction (and thus, not any of Lekeitio, Ondarru, or Zamudio). Looking solely
at the second person pronouns, one finds three of them (used to express four
categories), exemplified here with the absolutive forms of Batua (Standard) Basque:
(6) Absolutive forms of second Person pronouns in Batua Basque:
Singular Plural
Colloquial hi zu-ek
Formal zu zu-ek
The syncretism in the righthand column is absolute (there is never a distinction

between formal and colloquial in the plural) and paradigmatic: it affects the
inventory of pronouns (as well as clitics and agreement) 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 mirror image, with a formal/colloquial distinction
only in the plural, but not in the singular.) As for the specific feature that encodes
the formal/colloquial distinction, we propose [ formal]:
(7) Formal/Colloquial Impoverishment
a. SD: a node N specified [+participant, author, singular, formal]
b. SC: delete [formal] in N
(8) Vocabulary entries for second person pronouns (Batua)
a. hi [+participant, author, formal]
b. zu [+participant,author]
This paradigmatic neutralization rule is therefore responsible for the asymmetric
expression of the formal/colloquial distinction in the singular, but not the plural of
the second person.
4.3.2 Paradigmatic Impoverishment in First Singular Clitics
As detailed extensively in the vocabulary entries provided in Chap. 3, the morphol-

ogy 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 first sin-
gular clitics at the outset of the Impoverishment block (by hypothesis, paradigmatic
and absolute neutralizations occur ordered before all other impoverishment rules, as
further discussed in Sect. 4.8).
(9) First Singular Clitic Impoverishment:
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.5
The evidence for [+participant] remaining as the result of first singular agreement
on T is evident from natural class patterning of first singular with first plural
and second person. For example, the rule affecting T called Past Participant T
Impoverishment in Lekeito ((61) in Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4.2) renders past and present
auxiliaries identical for all forms agreeing with a participant absolutive, including
first singular. Similarly, Ondarru -indu- is the realization of [+participant] agreement
on T in the past, which includes the first singular forms (see (80) in Chap. 3,
Sect. 3.4.3).
5 Impoverishment of 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.
4.3 Paradigmatic Markedness 207
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.6 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 (9) and crucially require the presence
of [+participant], such as agreement (which includes Agree-Copy), and those that
apply after it and crucially require the absence of [+participant], such as the process
of Participant Dissimilation discussed in Sect. 4.6 below.
First, the rules of Participant Dissimilation impoverish or obliterate one of two
clitics when there are two [+participant] clitics on the same auxiliary, thereby
potentially affecting second person or first plural clitics. However, they are never
triggered by or target first singular clitics. This otherwise puzzling instance of non-
participation in the rule is simply explained if first singular clitics lack the feature
that induces dissimilation.
Second, one the rules of Plural Clitic Impoverishment in Sect. 4.7 is a syntag-
matic Impoverishment rule whose environment includes the set of [+participant]
clitics, but missing from the list of triggers are first singular clitics; as shown
in Table 4.1 on p. 225, number distinctions among absolutive and dative clitics
are intact in the environment of first singular ergatives but neutralized in the
environment of first plural and second person clitics.
We therefore note that there are three natural classes of clitics in the patterns
above: first singular clitics, first plural and second person clitics, and third person
clitics. These are easily distinguished in a system with the present features:
(10) Natural classes in clitics based on their person features
a. Natural class including first singular and plural: [+author]
b. Natural class including first plural and second singular and plural:
[+participant]
c. Natural class including third singular and plural: [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
Impoverishment rules in this chapter. Consider, for example, the Impoverishment
rule (78) in Ondarru (Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4.3), which affects third plural agreement
on a T node in the presence of an ergative [+participant] cliticagain, excluding
first singular clitics. Moreover, in Chap. 5, Sect. 5.4.1, we note a restriction on
6 Moreover, the presence of [+participant] is even more predictable from the presence of [+author,
+singular], since a singular group with only the author must contain exclusively participants, while
a [singular] 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.
the structural description of Ergative Metathesis that again refers to [+participant],

excluding first singular clitics.
In sum, the phenomenon of first plural and second person clitics patterning as 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 deletion of [+participant] in a [+author,
+singular] clitic.
4.4 Syntagmatic Markedness
We illustrate syntagmatic markedness in this section with two case studies: dissim-
ilatory deletion of number features in Warlpiri, and 3/3 effects in Romance clitic
clusters.
4.4.1 Dissimilatory Deletion
A case of syntagmatic markedness, in which the structural change involves

markedness-triggered deletion of one or both of two nodes, can be found in the
dissimilative Impoverishment of the dual in Western Warlpiri (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 its auxiliary that crossreference subject and object. Warlpiri has distinct
clitics for first person dual subjects and first person plural subjects: first person dual
is realized by a single fused clitic while first person plural is realized by distinct
first person and plural number morphemes. (11) and (12) show the ordinary distinct
marking of dual and plural:
(11) First dual in Warlpiri
Natju manu yali ka-litjara pula-mi
I and that PRS.IMP-CL.SBJ.1.DL shout-
NPST
I and that one are shouting. (Warlpiri, Hale 1973:320)
(12) First plural in Warlpiri
Nanimpa-lu ka-na-Nku-lu njuntu nja-nji
we(Pl)-ERG PRS.IMP-CL.SBJ.1-CL.OBJ.2.SG-CL.SBJ.PL you(Sg) see-PST
We(Pl) see you(Sg). (Warlpiri, Hale 1973:328)
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 the following examples, although the pronouns remain dual, the
clitics do not:
4.4 Syntagmatic Markedness 209
(13) Dual to plural neutralization in the context of dual in Warlpiri

Natjara-lu ka-na-lu-njara njumpala
we(Dl)-ERG PRS.IMP-CL.SBJ.1-CL.SBJ.PL-CL.OBJ.2.PL you(Dl)
nja-nji
see-NPST
We two see you two. (Warlpiri, Hale 1973:330)
(14) Dual to plural neutralization in the context of plural in Warlpiri
maliki-tjara-lu ka-lu-tjana wawiri-patu
dog-DL-ERG PRS.IMP-CL.SBJ.3.PL-CL.OBJ.3.PL kangaroo-PCL
nja-nji
see-NPST
The two dogs see the several kangaroos. (Warlpiri, Hale 1973:330)
We have seen in (11) that when a dual argument is the only nonsingular clitic, it
is realized by a specialized dual clitic form. However, when it is in the context of
another nonsingular clitic, the doubly-marked presence of both is enough to trigger
an Impoverishment rule that renders the realization of dual clitics as identical to that
of corresponding plural clitics (see Noyer 2001:796). By hypothesis, the feature
distinguishing dual from plural is [augmented], where the former is [augmented]
(Harbour 2008b; Nevins 2011a). Thus, while a dual clitic would be expected and
would be able to surface as such in other contexts, it cannot in the context of a
nonsingular clitic, due to the markedness-based dissimilatory Impoverishment rule
in (15):
(15) Warlpiri Dual Impoverishment:
a. SD: a clitic Cl1 specified as [augmented, singular] in the same M-
word as a clitic Cl2 specified as [singular]
b. SC: delete [augmented] in Cl1 .
While the conditioning context is the syntagmatically-marked configuration
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
specification on distinct nodes within the M-word will rear its head again in the case
of Participant Dissimilation in Basque discussed in Sect. 4.6.
4.4.2 3/3 Effects
Third Plural Clitic Impoverishment in Ondarru, discussed in Sect. 4.7 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 configuration, even

though this feature by itself is not marked. Consider first 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 se7 :
(16) Spurious se in Spanish

Juan {se/*le} lo dio a l.
Juan CL.IMPE/CL.D.3.SG CL.ACC.3.SG.M 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.8
Parallel phenomena are found in other Romance languages. In Barcelon Catalan,
the same configuration leads to realization of the dative clitic as a locative
(Bonet 1995):
(17) Neutralization Barcelon Catalan clitic clusters
Els llibres, a en Quim, [@lz] [i/*li]
the books to the Quim CL.ACC.3.PL.M CL.LOC/CL.DAT.3.SG
donar dem.
give.FUT.1.SG tomorrow
Ill give the books to Quim tomorrow.
(Barcelon Catalan, Bonet 1995:639)
This phenomenon can be modeled in a way similar to Spanish spurious se in terms
of deletion of person features, under the assumption that (otherwise locative) [i] is
a default clitic exponent not specified for person (see Pescarini 2010 for evidence
that locative clitics can be defaults in Romance languages). In Italian, the dative
clitic 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:
(18) Neutralization of gender in Italian clitic clusters
[Le/*le] -lo presto.
CL . D -CL.ACC.3.SG.M lend.PRS.1.SG
I lend it to him/her. (Italian, Pescarini 2010:430)
Finally, in Tavullia (Northern Italian), 3/3 effects can be observed in clusters of
subject and object clitics:
7 See Nevins (2007:307310) for evidence that this is impersonal se, not its reflexive homophone.
8 Spurious se also neutralizes number distinctions, but this is a general property of Spanish se, and
not a direct consequence of Impoverishment in clitic clusters.
4.6 Participant Dissimilation 211
(19) Clitic Obliteration in Tavullia clitic clusters

(*El) la "cEma
CL . SBJ .3. SG . M CL . ACC.3. SG . F call. PRS .3. SG
He calls her. (Tavullia, Northern Italian, Manzini and Savoia 2004:226)
The result in this case is Obliteration of the entire third person subject clitic node
(and therefore neutralization with clusters without subject clitics).
What all the Romance 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
(or even an entire terminal node) in these languages: person features in Spanish and
Barcelon, gender in Italian, and the entire subject clitic node in Tavullia. As we
show in Sect. 4.7 below, it results in deletion of number features in Ondarru Basque.
4.5 On the Nonlinearity of Impoverishment
Having outlined a number of properties of Impoverishment rules in the previous

sections, 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: specifically, 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 Chaps. 3 and 5, respectively, these operations are crucially sensitive to linear
(adjacency) relations. As discussed in Sect. 4.6 below, the fact that Impoverishment
is insensitive to linear relations is confirmed by different instances of this rule in
Basque clitics.
4.6 Participant Dissimilation
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 first discussed in the generative literature
in Arregi and Nevins (2007), and has been described for several Biscayan varieties
in Gaminde (1982), Gaminde (1983), Gaminde (2000), Laka et al. (2008) and
de Yrizar (1992b).
The following are two illustrative examples from different varieties:
(20) 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)
(21) Participant Dissimilation in Zamudio
Eroa-n bear s -ara / *s -aitu -u
take-NF must CL.A.2.SG -PRS.2.SG / CL.A.2.SG -PRS.2.SG -CL.E.1.PL
eskola-ra.
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 first plural dative clitic is deleted in the
context of a second singular ergative, while Zamudio deletion targets a first 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 syntagmatic markedness is shown by the fact that the
presence of a triggering clitic is necessary for Participant Dissimilation to apply.
Thus, Obliteration of a first plural dative clitic in Ondarru is not possible in the
absence of a triggering ergative clitic:
(22) No Participant Dissimilation in the absence of triggering clitic
Gu-ri liburu-0/ gusta-ten
us-DAT book-ABS.SG 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 specified as [+participant] and therefore marked.
The presence of [+participant] on both nodes is crucial. For instance, the Ondarru
example in (20) contrasts minimally with sentences where either the ergative or the
dative clitics are third person:
(23) 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
He has given us the book. (Ondarru)
(24) 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 him 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 first plural dative argument in (20) 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
Sect. 1.4.1, 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 Dissimi-
lation have these properties. We thus propose the following general schema for this
rule in Biscayan:
(25) Participant Dissimilation
a. Structural description: an auxiliary M-word with two clitics Cl1 and
Cl2 such that Cl1 is specified as [+participant, ] and Cl2 is specified
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 structural
change of the rule can be limited to deletion of the feature [+participant] (25bi),
or it can result in Obliteration of the entire node (25bii). Specific illustrations
of each are provided in Sects. 4.6.14.6.3 below. Second, particular dialects may
impose further conditions on the structural description, in both the targeted clitic
Cl1 and the triggering clitic Cl2 in terms of their case or -features, expressed
in (25) as variables and over feature sets. For instance, as discussed below, the
targeted morpheme in Ondarru is always first person, and the triggering morpheme
is ergative. Further specification of person on the triggering morpheme is not
necessary: it must be first or second person (participant), but cannot have the same
person as the targeted morpheme, due to the restriction on combinations of first
with first and second with second discussed in Sect. 1.4.5 in Chap. 1. For instance,
Obliteration of the first plural dative clitic in (20) does not occur in the context of a
first plural ergative due to the fact that this is an impossible combination of clitics
in all Basque dialects.
In order to capture the pandialectal fact that certain combinations of participant
clitics are targets of Impoverishment, we propose that Participant Dissimilation rules
are triggered by the following markedness constraint:
(26) Syntagmatic Participant Markedness
An auxiliary M-word cannot contain two clitics Cl1 and Cl2 such that Cl1
is specified as [+participant, ] and Cl2 is specified as [+participant, ]
(where and range over dialect-particular feature sets).
As in other cases of Impoverishment, this constraint states explicitly the
markedness-related nature of Participant Dissimilation. In discussing specific
instantiations of Participant Dissimilation in Ondarru and Zamudio below, we
do not state the constraint explicitly, since it is completely recoverable from the
structural description of the Dissimilation rule.
Although Participant Dissimilation has to do with participant clitics, it never
targets auxiliaries with first singular clitics. For instance, Obliteration is not possible
in the counterpart of Ondarru (20) with a first singular dative clitic:
(27) No Participant Dissimilation in the context of first 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 (25) because it is accounted
for by the following Impoverishment rule (Sect. 4.3.2):
(28) First Singular Clitic Impoverishment
a. Structural description: a clitic Cl specified as [+participant, +author,
+singular]
b. Structural change: delete [+participant] in Cl
This rule deletes the [+participant] feature from first singular clitics, and inde-
pendent evidence for it is presented in Sect. 3.4 in Chap. 3, as well as Sect. 4.7
below. We propose that it applies before Participant Dissimilation in the Markedness
Component, which accounts for the absence of Participant Dissimilation effects

with first singular clitics. This follows from the fact that First Singular Clitic
Impoverishment is based on paradigmatic markedness.
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 with 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 (21), where the triggering second person absolutive clitic (s-) and
the deleted first 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 Sect. 4.6.3 provides a
summary of other instances of Participant Dissimilation in other Biscayan varieties.
4.6.1 Ondarru
In this variety, Participant Dissimilation results in Obliteration, deleting first plural

absolutive and dative clitics in the context of a second person ergative clitic9 :
(29) Ondarru: Obliteration of 1Pl absolutive in the context of 2nd ergative
Su-k geu-/0/ ikus-i
you(Sg)-ERG us-ABS see-PRF
d -o -su (>su) /
L - PRS .1. PL - CL . E .2. SG /
*g -aitu -su. (>gatxusu)
CL. A .1. PL - PRS .1. PL - CL . E .2. SG
You(Sg) have seen us. (Ondarru)
(30) Ondarru: Obliteration of 1Pl dative in the context of 2nd ergative
Su-k gu-ri liburu-0/ emo-n
you(Sg)-ERG us-DAT book-ABS give-PRF
d -o -su (>su) /
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . E .2. SG /
*d -o -ku -su. (>skusu)
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
data10 :
9 See Tables A.3A.8 in Appendix A for full paradigms illustrating Participant Dissimilation in
Ondarru.
10 Case labels such as ergative in this rule and others below are abbreviations for the correspond-
ing case feature sets.

(31) Ondarru: 1Pl Obliteration

Cl2 such that Cl1 is [+participant, +author] and Cl2 is [Ergative,
+participant].
b. Structural change: delete Cl1 .
The rule deletes Cl1 , which must be specified as first plural (the structural descrip-
tion excludes first singular, due to First Singular Clitic Impoverishment; see previous
subsection). It is underspecified for case, and thus affects both absolutive and dative
clitics. Since the triggering Cl2 is specified 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 specification in Cl2 is [+participant]: the restriction against cooccurrence of
participant clitics of the same person (Sect. 1.4.5 in Chap. 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 (29):
(32) Derivation of the auxiliary in (29)

D T D
Absolutive +past Ergative

Part Dissimilation
+participant +participant +participant C

+author +author author
singular singular +singular

T D
+past Ergative

1Pl Impoverishment
+participant +participant C

+author author
singular +singular

T D
+past Ergative

Have/Appl-Insertion
participant +participant C
L-Support
author author
singular +singular

T
+past D

+have Ergative

Vocabulary Insertion
L appl +participant C

participant author

author +singular
singular
d -o -su -0/
Participant Dissimilation deletes the absolutive clitic. This triggers insertion of

an epenthetic L-morpheme, as in other auxiliaries that lack an absolutive clitic
(Sect. 5.4.3 in Chap. 5). The root node (T) in this auxiliary is also subject to a
different rule of First Plural Impoverishment, which neutralizes its first person
features with third (Sect. 3.4.3 in Chap. 3).11 Participant Dissimilation has the same
effect on the first plural dative clitic in (30): 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 Chap. 6, where it is shown that
they interact in interesting ways with Ergative Metathesis (Chap. 5) and Absolutive
Promotion (Chap. 2).
The monotransitive example (29) 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.
4.6.2 Zamudio
Zamudio has a general Participant Dissimilation rule that deletes dative and ergative
first plural clitics in the context of a second person clitic12 :
(33) Zamudio: 1Pl Obliteration
Cl2 such that Cl1 is [+motion, +participant, +author] and Cl2 is
[+participant].
The deleted first plural morpheme Cl1 is specified for [+motion], which matches the
case features of both dative and ergative clitics, to the exclusion of absolutive clitics
(as noted above for Ondarru, Cl1 cannot be first singular, due to First Singular Clitic
Impoverishment). As in Ondarru, the triggering morpheme Cl2 need not be further
specified for person. The fact that it always happens to be second person is due to
independently motivated conditions on clitic combinations.
11 The order of application of these two Impoverishment rules is not relevant for the output.
12 See Tables A.3A.8 in Appendix A 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 field work. Forms missing in these sources have been
obtained from de Yrizar 1992b in order to provide full paradigms in Appendix A, especially in the
past tense. This accounts for all (apparent) exceptions to Participant Dissimilation in the past tense
in this variety found in Appendix A.
Three types of auxiliaries instantiate Zamudio Participant Dissimilation. First, a

second person ergative triggers the deletion of a first plural dative clitic13 :
(34) Zamudio: Obliteration of 1Pl dative in the context of 2nd ergative
Sue-k gu-ri lagun-du s -endu -e -n /
you(Pl)-ERG us-DAT accompany-PRF CL.E.2 -PST.3.SG -CL.E.PL CPST /
*d -o -ku -su -e -n. (>doskusuen)
L - PST.3. SG - CL. D.1. PL - CL . E .2 - CL . E . PL - CPST
You(Pl) accompanied us. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:376)
Although the rule of Participant Dissimilation in Zamudio is different from Ondarru,
they both result in Obliteration in this type of example (see Ondarru (30)).
The second type is illustrated in the following example, where, in opposition
to (34), a first plural ergative clitic is deleted in the context of a second person
dative clitic14 :
(35) 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 first plural, as shown
in the translation. It is not completely transparent that the first plural ergative
clitic in this example is deleted, since a third person ergative clitic has null
realization in this context (Sect. 3.4.3 in Chap. 3). That is, given the facts discussed
so far, the auxiliary in (35) 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 (35) 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 (Sect. 3.4.3 in Chap. 3):
13 Note that the ergative clitic in s-endu-e-n in (34) surfaces in proclitic position, due to Ergative
Metathesis (Sect. 5.4 in Chap. 5).
14 The L-exponent in this form is y-. This seems to be due to idiolectal variation in the realization
of the epenthetic L-morpheme in Zamudio, where many speakers, as reported in Gaminde (2000)
and in Tables A.2, A.4 and A.5 in Appendix A, have d- instead in present tense applicative forms
of this type. The speaker from whom we obtained (35) seems to have a more general distribution
for the L-exponent y- (see Sect. 5.4.3 in Chap. 5 for relevant discussion).
(36) Zamudio: default vocabulary entries for T

a. Transitive
o [+have]
b. Intransitive
a [have]
As shown in Sect. 3.4.1 in Chap. 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 follows15 :
(37) Derivation of the auxiliary in (35)

T D
+past D D Ergative

Dative Dative Part Diss
part +part C
+part +part
author +author
author singular
+singular singular

T
+past D D

Dative
Dative

Have/Appl-Ins
part C
+part +part L-Support
author
author singular
+singular

T
+past

have D D

Dative
Dative

VI
L +appl C
+part +part
part

author author singular
+singular
y -a -tzu -e -0/
Deletion of the ergative clitic triggers insertion of [have] in T, which is in turn
realized as intransitive -a- (36b), not transitive -o- (36a). If the absence of an overt
ergative clitic in (35) 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:
15 Note that the dative clitic undergoes Plural Fission in the Exponence Conversion module
(Sect. 3.3.4 in Chap. 3).
(38) Obliteration of 1Pl ergative in the context of 2nd absolutive

Eroa-n bear s -ara / *s -aitu -u
take-NF must CL.A.2.SG -PRS.2.SG / CL.A.2.SG -PRS.2.SG -CL.E.1.PL
eskola-ra.
school-ALL.SG
We have to take you(Sg) to school. (Zamudio)
Like Ondarru (29), 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 confirmation that the rule in Zamudio deletes the entire clitic node. The
relevant vocabulary entries for T are the following (Sects. 3.4.23.4.3 in Chap. 3):
(39) Zamudio: vocabulary entries for participant T in the present tense
a. Transitive
aitu [+have, past, +participant]/ [peripheral]
b. Intransitive
ara [have, appl, past, +participant]
Obliteration of the ergative results in insertion of intransitive -ara- (39b) in T, not
transitive -aitu- (39a). If the ergative were present (but null), the auxiliary in (38)
would be saitu, contrary to fact.
The Biscayan variety of Alboniga provides an informative minimal contrast
with Zamudio. In this variety, Participant Dissimilation in the same context as
Zamudio (38) results in deletion of the feature [participant], not Obliteration of
the entire clitic node16:
(40) Alboniga: Impoverishment of 1Pl ergative in the context of 2nd absolutive
Gu-k seue-k ikus-i
us-ERG you(Pl)-ABS see-PRF
s -aitu -/0/ -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 1992b:466)
16 The auxiliary in (40) is from de Yrizar (1992b), which only provides auxiliary paradigms. We
have filled in the rest of the sentence with an overt main verb and subject and object arguments,
trying to replicate the context that elicited this auxiliary. de Yrizar (1992b:463) cites two separate
sources for his Alboniga data. The first one is field notes by Resurreccin Mara de Azkue, who
gathered data from this neighborhood at the beginning of the twentieth century (as part of the field
work that formed the basis of de Azkue (1925)). The second is field work conducted by Martn
Olazar between 1980 and 1982. The auxiliary form in (40) is from the second source. De Yrizar
also provides the form saittuegu, with an overt first plural ergative clitic exponent -gu, obtained
from the first 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 (40).
As in Zamudio (38), the auxiliary does not have an overt clitic doubling the first
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 (38).
The theory of Impoverishment adopted here has its roots in the classical
conception of this process in the DM framework as a deletion operation in response
to markedness (Bonet 1991; Noyer 1992; Halle and Marantz 1993). The main
innovation, first introduced in Arregi and Nevins (2007), is the idea that deletion
can target a feature (Impoverishment) or an entire node (Obliteration), as illustrated
by the contrast between Alboniga and Zamudio. Note that theories in which Impov-
erishment is always implemented as insertion of a zero morpheme (e.g. Trommer
1999), aside from failing to capture the markedness-reducing character of the
process and failing to enforce the syncretism at a more systematic (e.g. upstream)
level of the grammar, also cannot capture the Impoverishment vs. Obliteration
distinction.
4.6.3 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.17 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 first plural
clitic in the context of a second person clitic. The reverse, Impoverishment of a
second person clitic in the context of a first plural is found in the varieties of
Alboniga (de Yrizar 1992b:Vol. 1, 466), Maruri, and Gatika (the last two in de Yrizar
(1992b:Vol. 1, 651)). This pattern is crucially relevant in concluding that Participant
Dissimilation effects can be symmetrical, unlike Person-Case Constraint (PCC)
effects: across dialects, one finds that either the first plural or the second person
clitic may be deleted, and no correlation can be drawn with the hierarchical relations
among the arguments. This crossdialectal typology forms the background for the
argument that Participant Dissimilation is postsyntactic: unlike the PCC, which is
hierarchically asymmetric and specifically involves, for example, a [participant]
dative c-commanding a [+participant] absolutive, with the latter derivationally
suffering as a result, in Participant Dissimilation, the pandialectal formulation
of the constraint is symmetric: any combination of two [+participant] clitics is
banned, and it is up to the repertoire of repair operations as to which one is deleted,
17 Like Zamudio, all the Basque varieties discussed in this subsection are in the Western Biscayan
subdialectal area, according to de Yrizars (1992b) classification.

where indeed virtually all possibilities (deleting the ergative, deleting the absolutive,
deleting the dative, deleting the first plural, deleting the second person) are attested
in some repair rule or other. In Zamudio, the decidedly non-hierarchical status of
Participant Dissimilation is found in the fact that it deletes the first plural clitic both
when ergative (35) or when dative (34), thereby ruling out an account (along the line
of Rosen (1990) for Southern Tiwa) in terms of, say, alignment of hierarchical theta
roles with a hierarchy of persons.
Alboniga has Participant Dissimilation in one other context apart from the ones
described in the previous paragraph and Sect. 4.6.2. As in Zamudio, it deletes a first
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 1992b:Vol. 1, 467).18
Other varieties have Participant Dissimilations similar to ones described above.
In Butroi a first plural dative clitic optionally is deleted in the context of a second
ergative (Gaminde 1982:424; de Yrizar 1992b:Vol. 1:637).19 Gallartu deletes a first
plural ergative clitic in the context of a second person absolutive or dative (Gaminde
1983:52, 6364, de Yrizar 1992b:Vol. 2, 124134). Finally, Bermeo, as described in
Laka et al. (2008), has a particularly generalized version of Participant Dissimilation
that impoverishes all first plural clitics in the context of a second person clitic.
4.6.4 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 morphosyn-
tactic Impoverishment rules in terms of reinterpretation of phonological processes.
Consider, for example, the origin of Participant Dissimilation as found in Zamudio
(Sect. 4.6.2 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 first plural ergative is -gu. Now, the operation of a phonological
rule, present in very many dialects of Biscayan Basque, that deletes intervocalic g
((145) in Chap. 3, Sect. 3.6.2), will yield a surface form dotzuu (such forms are in
fact attested in varieties of Biscayan such as Barrika; see de Yrizar 1992b:Vol. 1,
557).20 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
18 On the colloquial/formal distinction in the second person in Basque, see Sect. 1.4.5 in Chap. 1.
19 Other potential Participant Dissimilation forms in Butroi are given in Gaminde (1982:421, 424)
and de Yrizar (1992b:636637). However, it is not clear to us whether the missing overt clitics in
these forms are due to phonological processes instead of Impoverishment.
20 In Zamudio and many other Western Biscayan varieties, this has resulted in lexicalization of the
first plural clitic as -u (Sect. 3.3.2 in Chap. 3).

4.7 Plural Clitic Impoverishment 223
combination of second singular dative and no ergative, which is d-a-tzuidentical,

save for the root vowel. The child hearing such forms may therefore mistakenly
reanalyze 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 Chap. 2, Sect. 2.3.2. This process affects the case features on an
ergative argument, which are therefore realized as absolutive -0, / not ergative -k.
This process has a possible historical source in the optional phonological rule that
deletes word-final 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):
(41) /
Jon-{ek//00} 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)
(42) /
Ni-{k//00} Jon-ei liburu-0/ emo-n
I-{ERG/ABS} Jon-DAT book-ABS.SG give-PRF
I have given the book to Jon. (Ondarru)
In cases like (42), it is indistinguishable whether the process is phonological
or morphosyntactic: the ergative suffix 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 final -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 (41), 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 suffix does not trigger vowel epenthesis.
The wholesale disappearance of both segments in the latter case implicates a
morphological rule responsible for insertion of a null exponent at VI.
4.7 Plural Clitic Impoverishment
Number distinctions are often neutralized in Basque clitics. This phenomenon can
be seen, for instance, in the following Ondarru minimal pair:
(43) 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)
You(Sg) have sent him the letter. (Ondarru)
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)
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 (Sect. 3.3.4 in Chap. 3). The absence of plural -e in
the context of a plural dative argument in (43b) indicates that the plural morpheme
fissioned from the doubling clitic is not specified 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 is
present in several Biscayan varieties, including Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio.21
This section offers a detailed account of Plural Clitic Impoverishment in these three
varieties.22
Number neutralization in clitics applies in three separate contexts in the varieties
under discussion. The first case, common to the three varieties, results in Impov-
erishment of plural in second and third person absolutive and dative clitics in the
context of a participant ergative clitic. The Ondarru example in (43b) illustrates
this. The following sentence from the same dialect illustrates the process with an
absolutive clitic:
21 Although the phenomena discussed in this section are attested in our primary sources for these
three varieties (Hualde et al. 1994; Gaminde 2000 and our own fieldwork), we have not undertaken
a systematic study of variation with respect to Plural Clitic Impoverishment in Biscayan, so we do
not know how widespread it is. Not all sources for these three varieties agree on the data discussed
here. For instance, the ditransitive forms given for Lekeitio in de Yrizar (1992b:99) are not subject
to Plural Clitic Impoverishment in the context of a participant clitic (see (45) below), and therefore
lack the number neutralizations illustrated in Table 4.1. This might be due to idiolectal variation,
or perhaps the Impoverishment rule is a relatively recent innovation: de Yrizars sources are
from early twentieth century and the 1970s and early 1980s, while our source for this dialect
was published in 1994. We have found similar discrepancies in the Ondarru and Zamudio data
in de Yrizar 1992b. All of them seem to point to idiolectal variation (or historical change) involving
absence of one of the Impoverishment rules proposed in this section.
22 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 A.6A.8 in Appendix A for the relevant past tense forms.
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 3 plural
2 singular d-o-tzu-t d-o-tzu-gu X X d-o-tzu-0/ d-o-tzu-0-e
/
2 plural d-o-tzu-e-t d-o-tzu-gu X X d-o-tzu-e-0/ d-o-tzu-e-0-e
/
3 singular d-o-tz-t d-o-tz-gu d-o-tz-su d-o-tz-su-e d-o-tz-0/ d-o-tz-0-e
/
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/ d-o-tz-e-0-e
/
(44) Neutralization of number in absolutive clitics

Gu-k sue-k ikus-i
we-ERG you(Sg)-ABS see-PRF
s -aitu (*-e) -gu. (>satxuau)
CL . A .2 - PRS .2. PL ( - CL. A . PL) - CL . E .1. PL
We have seen you(Pl). (Ondarru)
Table 4.1 provides the relevant parts of the paradigm in Lekeitio. Table 4.1a is
a partial present tense monotransitive paradigm with second person absolutive
clitics.23 The number neutralization in this clitic is made evident by comparing
the two cells in each column: in the column corresponding to first 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.24 Table 4.1b 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 (first plural and second) ergative clitic, thus neutralizing number
distinctions in the relevant columns. The reader can verify in Tables A.3A.5 in
Appendix A that the Ondarru and Zamudio paradigms are identical to Lekeitio in
this respect.
23 Third person absolutive arguments do not trigger cliticization, and therefore are not relevant for
Plural Clitic Impoverishment.

24 This exponent is also present in the context of a first singular ergative clitic. This follows from
our analysis, as discussed below.

We propose the following rule to account for this case of number neutralization:
(45) Plural Clitic Impoverishment in the context of a participant clitic
Cl2 such that Cl1 is [singular], Cl2 is [Ergative, +participant], and
Cl1 and Cl2 are not sisters.
b. Structural change: delete [singular] in Cl1 .
The structural description of the rule matches the corresponding markedness
constraint that triggers the rule:
(46) Plural-Participant Markedness
An auxiliary M-word cannot contain two clitics Cl1 and Cl2 such that Cl1 is
[singular], Cl2 is [Ergative, +participant], and Cl1 and Cl2 are not sisters.
Like Participant Dissimilation, this is a syntagmatic markedness constraint against
clitic combinations with marked values for [participant] and [singular].
In the relevant cases, the rule targets a fissioned plural morpheme from an
absolutive or dative clitic. Consider, for instance, the derivation of the auxiliary
in (43b), 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:
(47) Result of Plural Fission in a third plural dative clitic
C
T C

T D D C
Ergative

+part
D D
Dative Dative author
+singular
part part
author singular
Since the targeted plural morpheme and the triggering participant ergative clitic
are not sisters, Plural Clitic Impoverishment deletes the [singular] feature in the
fissioned clitic:
(48) Result of Plural Clitic Impoverishment in a third plural dative clitic

C
T C

T D D C
Ergative

+part
D D
+singular
part part
author
In the absence of a dative clitic exponent matching the features of the impoverished
clitic, the latter is realized as null (the universal default).
In effect, the nonsister condition in (45) ensures that the triggering participant
feature and the targeted plural feature originate in separate clitics.25 Since the
triggering clitic is ergative and there can only be one clitic per case in the auxiliary,
the targeted plural morpheme must be fissioned 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 first 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 (28), which applies before Plural Clitic
Impoverishment. Deletion of [+participant] in first 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 fissioned plural morpheme. In particular, a first plural clitic,
which does not undergo Plural Fission (Sect. 3.3.4 in Chap. 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 Lekeitio auxiliaries with a
first plural absolutive or dative clitic in Tables A.3A.5 in Appendix A. This is due
to the feature specification of the relevant vocabulary entries, illustrated here for the
dialect of Lekeitio (Sect. 3.3.2 in Chap. 3):
25 If they originated in the same clitic, this would predict generalized neutralization of number in
participant ergative clitics, contrary to fact.

(49) Lekeitio: vocabulary entries for first plural clitics

a. ku [+peripheral, +motion, +participant, +author] Dat
b. gu [peripheral, +motion, +participant, +author] Erg
c. g [+participant, +author]/ T Abs
Since the clitic entries lack a specification for number, deletion of the plural feature
does not have an effect on the realization of first plural clitics.26
Ondarru has yet another type of Plural Clitic Impoverishment:
(50) Ondarru: Third Plural Clitic Impoverishment
Cl2 such that Cl1 is [Dative, participant, singular] and Cl2 is
[Ergative, participant].
The rule applies in combinations of third person clitic clusters (dative and ergative),
and its result is the neutralization of number contrasts in the dative clitic:
(51) 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)
John has sent him the letter. (Ondarru)
b. Jon-ek eur-ai karti-0/ bixal-du
Jon-ERG them-DAT.PL 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)
This neutralization provides confirmation to the claim made in Sect. 4.4.2, on the
basis of similar 3/3 effects in Romance, that the combination of two morphemes
specified as [participant] results in a marked configuration that is the target of
Impoverishment, even though this feature by itself is not marked. We can thus
26 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 first plural clitics are
specified 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 first plural clitic in the context
of a second person clitic. Thus, Impoverishment of first 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 Sect. 4.6, Participant Dissimilation targets first plural more often than
second person.
view this Ondarru rule, as well as the parallel ones in Romance, as triggered by
the following syntagmatic markedness constraint:
(52) 3/3-Markedness
An M-word cannot contain two clitics Cl1 and Cl2 , where Cl1 is specified
as [participant, ] and Cl2 is specified as [participant, ] (where and
range over language-particular feature sets).
In Ondarru, = [Dative, singular], and = [Ergative]. The same constraint
applies in several Romance languages, with variation due to differences in and
(and in the target of deletion).
The structure of the auxiliary in (51b) after Plural Fission of the dative clitic is
the following:
(53) Plural Fission in a third plural dative clitic
C
T C

T D D C
Ergative

part
D D
+singular
part part
author singular
The fissioned 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 Sect. 3.3.4 in Chap. 3 that morphemes that
are the output of Fission share most of their features with the input morpheme.
A final case of Plural Clitic Impoverishment in the three dialects discussed here
is present in Zamudio. This variety has the following very specific rule targeting a
single ditransitive auxiliary:
(54) Zamudio: Third Ergative Plural Clitic Impoverishment
a. Structural description: a past tense auxiliary M-word 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].
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 first plural. The result can be observed in the following auxiliary:
(55) 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 A.4, A.5, A.7, and A.8 in Appendix A 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.27 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 p. 225, where the relevant forms are those that cross-
reference a second or third plural absolutive or dative argument and a second
or third plural ergative argument. In the 3Pl dative/2Pl ergative auxiliary d-o-
tz-su-e (Table 4.1), the expected dative plural -e is missing due to Plural Clitic
Impoverishment in the context of a participant clitic (45). 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 Sect. 3.6.2 in
Chap. 3).28 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, triggered by a syntagmatic markedness constraint
banning combinations of clitics with this feature. 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.
27 Mais 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 signifier 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 fulfill two different functions. Thus, in
Modern Labourdin and in 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.
28 The auxiliaries in Table 4.1 are shown in their underlying form, so the effect of this phonological
rule is not apparent.

4.8 A Concise Summary of All Impoverishment Rules Proposed 231
4.8 A Concise Summary of All Impoverishment Rules

Proposed
Before closing this chapter, we present a global order of every Impoverishment

(and Obliteration) rule introduced in this book, with the aim of demonstrating that
there is a globally consistent order of all of the rules, and highlighting their potential
interaction and organization in terms of modularized components. These three
components are Exponence Conversion, one of the first modules during Spellout,
and two subdivisions within the Feature Markedness module itself: paradigmatic-
markedness-based Impoverishment rules and syntagmatic-markedness-based Im-
poverishment rules, ordered in turn.
The first of all potentially applicable Impoverishment rules occurs within the
Exponence Conversion component, which contains one Impoverishment rule specif-
ically targeting case features: First Dative Impoverishment in Lekeitio. We posit that
Impoverishment rules having to do with case (perhaps also Ergative Impoverishment
on arguments, discussed below) apply in this module, as they operate on one of
the more determinant layers of DP structure. We also posit that default supplying
of absolutive case features occurs during the Exponence Conversion module.29
Returning to the ordering among Impoverishment rules, the first to apply is within
this first component:
(56) First Dative Impoverishment (Lekeitio) (89), p. 87
a. SD: a present tense auxiliary with two clitics Cl1 and Cl2 , where
b. SC: Cl1 [motion, peripheral, +author].
With respect to interactions specifically with other Impoverishment rules, First

Dative Impoverishment feeds the later Impoverishment rule of First Singular T
Impoverishment in the Syntagmatic Markedness submodule ((62), p. 149): the
agreement that occurs with dative-turned-absolutive clitics as a result of (56)
patterns identically with agreement with absolutives with respect to potential
neutralization in the present tense conditioned by an ergative clitic.
There are two Impoverishment rules within the paradigmatic markedness com-
ponent. The first is an optional context-free rule that has no interaction with any
other rules discussed in this book, since it occurs on an argument of the verb, and
therefore does not interact with any processes affecting the auxiliary M-word:
(57) Ergative Impoverishment (optional) (56), p. 73
a. SD: an argument A specified as [peripheral, +motion].
b. SC: A [peripheral, motion]
29 Recall that absolutive case is not determined in the syntax. See Sect. 1.4.1 in Chap. 1.
The second paradigmatic Impoverishment rule affects [+participant] on first

singular clitics, and has a number of effects on subsequent rules:
(58) First Singular Clitic Impoverishment (28), p. 214
All of the following Impoverishment rules are bled by (58), since they are all
syntagmatic Impoverishment rules conditioned by the presence of a [+participant]
clitic. The bleeding relation is thus in all cases related to features of the trigger:
(59) Syntagmatic Impoverishment rules bled by the prior application of (58):
a. First Plural T Impoverishment (77), p. 153 and (87), p. 154
b. Third Plural T Impoverishment (78), p. 153
c. Participant Dissimilation (25), p. 213
d. Plural Clitic Impoverishment (45), p. 226
Finally, we turn to the syntagmatic Impoverishment rules proposed within this book.
The first one of them is Past Participant T Impoverishment:
(60) Past Participant T Impoverishment (Lekeitio) (61), p. 148
This rule, as it neutralizes past with present tense, may in turn feed First Singular T
Impoverishment, since the latter is limited to applying within the present tense:
(61) First Singular T Impoverishment (Lekeitio, Ondarru) (62), p. 149
An extrinsic ordering is thus required between (60) and (61). The next five
syntagmatic rules have no interactions with any others other than those mentioned
in (59):
(62) First Singular T Impoverishment (Zamudio) (86), p. 154
and an ergative clitic
(63) First Plural T Impoverishment (Ondarru) (77), p. 153
a. SD: a T node specified as [+participant, +author, singular] and an
ergative clitic specified as [+participant]
b. SC: T [participant, author, singular]
4.8 A Concise Summary of All Impoverishment Rules Proposed 233
(64) First Plural T Impoverishment (Zamudio) (87), p. 154

a. SD: a T node specified as [past, +participant, +author, singular]
b. SC: T [past, participant, author, singular]
(65) Third Plural T Impoverishment (Ondarru) (78), p. 153
a. SD: a T node specified as [past, participant, author, singular]
b. SC: delete [singular] in T
(66) Third Ditransitive T Impoverishment (Zamudio) (88), p. 154
a. SD: A T node specified as [+past, participant, author], a dative
clitic and an ergative clitic specified as [participant, author].
b. SC: delete [participant, author] in T
A final example of extrinsic interaction among syntagmatic rules involves
Participant Dissimilation and Plural Clitic Impoverishment. Both Ondarru and
Zamudio have Participant Dissimilation rules:
(67) 1Pl Obliteration (Ondarru) (31), p. 216
a. SD: an auxiliary M-word with two clitics Cl1 and Cl2 such that Cl1 is
[+participant, +author] and Cl2 is [Ergative, +participant].
b. SC: delete Cl1 .
(68) 1Pl Obliteration (Zamudio) (33), p. 217
[+motion, +participant, +author] and Cl2 is [+participant].
b. SD: delete Cl1 .
The rule for Plural Clitic Impoverishment, which depends on two clitics and is
present in all three varieties studied in detail here, is bled when (68) removes the
potentially conditioning clitic in Zamudio:
(69) Plural Clitic Impoverishment in the context of a participant clitic (45),
p. 226
a. SD: an auxiliary M-word with two clitics Cl1 and Cl2 such that Cl1
is [singular], Cl2 is [Ergative, +participant], and Cl1 and Cl2 are not
sisters.
b. SD: delete [singular] in Cl1 .
Finally, the following two syntagmatic rules have no extrinsic interaction with any
others:
(70) Third Plural Clitic Impoverishment (Ondarru) (50), p. 228
[Dative, participant, singular] and Cl2 is [Ergative, participant].
b. SC: delete [singular] in Cl1 .
(71) Third Ergative Plural Clitic Impoverishment (Zamudio) (54), p. (54)

a. SD: a past tense auxiliary M-word 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. SC: delete [singular] in Cl1 .
In sum, we have found evidence for only two extrinsic orderings among Impoverish-
ment rules, and both of these interactions occur within the syntagmatic component:
(1) Past Participant T Impoverishment in Lekeitio feeds First Singular T Impover-
ishement, and (2) Participant Dissimilation bleeds Plural Clitic Impoverishment.
To conclude, a globally consistent order for all impoverishment rules in the book
is clearly established, and most ordering relations are intrinsic, given the modular
organization in (72):
(72) Exponence Conversion > Paradigmatic > Syntagmatic
The evidence for an ordering of paradigmatic Impoverishment before syntag-
matic Impoverishment rules is strong, as First Singular Clitic Impoverishment, a
paradigmatic rule, bleeds four syntagmatic rules. We have evidence that Exponence
Conversion feeds syntagmatic rules, but no evidence with respect to its interaction
with paradigmatic rules. Their intrinsic ordering is thus established transitively.
4.9 Impoverishment in the Light of Crossmodular

Structural Parallelism
We have introduced the distinction between Impoverishment and Obliteration in the

Feature Markedness module, and focused on two case studies: Participant Dissimila-
tion and Plural Clitic Impoverishment. Both of these phenomenaand in particular,
the formerare characterized by a striking property: they show a wide pandialectal
uniformity of structural description throughout Biscayan varieties, while at the same
time displaying a great deal of crossdialectal variation in terms of their structural
change. While all of the varieties discussed here ban some combination of first
plural and second person clitics on the same auxiliary complex, they differ, for
instance, in which clitic is to be deleted in order to satisfy the constraint against the
cooccurrence of these two [+participant] clitics. They also differ, to a certain extent,
in whether they implement deletion in terms of an Impoverishment rule, targeting
a single feature on a node, or in terms of an Obliteration rule, which removes the
entire node from the structure, thereby rendering it ineligible for exponence, as well
as ineligible for conditioning allomorphy on other terminals (e.g. Have-Insertion).
Nonetheless, this array of distinct deletion rules share a fundamental property in
common: their insensitivity to the specific linear order of the terminals affected,
both in terms of structural description and structural change. We argue that this
4.9 Impoverishment in the Light of Crossmodular Structural Parallelism 235
effect follows specifically from the fact that the Feature Markedness module, in
which these operations occur, is serially ordered prior to the Linearization operation,
and therefore there literally is no linear order to which to refer, only co-habitation
within the same M-Word. Finally, being postsyntactic, such deletion operations are
responsible for mismatches between syntax and morphology, or more specifically,
between the features realized on the argumental pronouns and their corresponding
clitics, as the rules on which we focus here affect the featural composition of clitics
within the auxiliary complex but leave the corresponding argumental pronouns
intact.
We have argued that Impoverishment and Obliteration rules, which have long
been viewed as the result of idiosyncratic properties of morphological expo-
nence, are often rooted in the basis of morphosyntactic markedness. Our specific
contribution in this chapter has been to focus on syntagmatic markedness
namely configurations that are marked specifically because of the properties
associated with two distinct morphemes. The view of Participant Dissimilation as
markedness-triggered therefore finds resonance with work such as Ito and Mester
(2003) in phonology, which focuses on the fact that the marked feature-value
[+voice] is tolerated once per word in Japanese, but not twice. Participant Dissim-
ilation, therefore, constitutes an occurrence of the same mechanismdissimilation
of one instance of a marked feature-value when there are twoinstantiating a
parallelism between morphological component and the phonological component.
As such, it forms part of a thread of inquiry that runs throughout this book, that
of investigating Crossmodular Structural Parallelism, the hypothesis that the most
fundamental differences between the morphological computation and phonological
computation is not in the inventory of operations that the two contain, but mostly
limited to the alphabet of primitives on which they operate. In the next chapter,
we turn to yet another morphology-internal mechanism, rampant throughout the
realization of Basque auxiliaries, which finds resounding echoes in phonology:
Metathesis and Reduplication.
Chapter 5
Linearity-Based Morphotactics
5.1 Introduction
Second position (or Noninitiality) effects (Wackernagel 1892; Halpern and Zwicky
1996; Anderson 2005) in which a particular category avoids the leftmost edge
of some domain, occur in a wide range of clausal contexts, yielding both V2
phenomena in Germanic and second position clitics in South Slavic, to name
but a few well-known cases. In this chapter, we consider an extension of the
general phenomenon of edge-related constraints to the domain of word-internal
morphotactics, focusing on the repair strategies of morphological Metathesis, of
Doubling, and of epenthesis of expletive-like elements. The proposal that second
position effects may occur within the word-domain has been explored to some
extent in Nevis and Joseph (1992), Embick and Noyer (2001) and Anderson (2005),
and we further expand their empirical terrain with in-depth case studies of linear
phenomena in the Basque auxiliary. One of the key repair strategies treated herein
is displacement of the ergative clitic to the left of the root (otherwise expected as
an enclitic), a phenomenon dubbed Ergative Displacement in Laka (1993a), which
we call here Ergative Metathesis in an attempt to subsume it under other morpheme
displacement phenomena crosslinguistically. We argue that Ergative Metathesis is
a morphological metathetic operation, and is demonstrably postsyntactic, operating
on a linearized sequence of morphemes.
Although Ergative Metathesis is one of the main empirical foci of this chapter, we
demonstrate that a number of other morpheme ordering phenomena are also due to
rules that apply to the output of Linearization in the postsyntactic component. With
the exception of Vocabulary Insertion (VI) and the phonological rules discussed in
Chap. 3, Sect. 3.6, all of the operations examined so far in this book are abstract,
in the sense that they are independent of both linear order and the phonological
exponents of terminal nodes, applying before Linearization and VI, either in the
syntax (e.g. Absolutive Promotion) or in the postsyntactic component (e.g. Fission
and Impoverishment). On the other hand, the rules and constraints proposed in

238 5 Linearity-Based Morphotactics
this chapter operate on linearized sequences, and they effect changes in the linear
order of morphemes. Furthermore, we focus on a subset of these operations that are
abstract in the sense that their structural descriptions do not mention the specific
phonological content of terminal nodes. In the modular and derivational view of
morphology adopted here, this entails that they apply before VI, at a stage of
the derivation in which structures are linearized but do not yet have phonological
exponence. We refer to this stage of the postsyntactic component sandwiched
between Linearization and VI as the Linear Operations module. As shown at
different points in this chapter, this correctly predicts that, unlike operations that
apply after VI, rules that apply in the Linear Operations module have an effect on
allomorph selection at VI. To the extent that our analysis is correct, we view this
as strong evidence that Linearization is a separate process that precedes Vocabulary
Insertion.
These ideas have two important precedents in the literature. Embick and Noyer
(2001) is the first in-depth discusion of the predictions that a DM-style framework
makes about the interactions between morpheme displacement operations and
certain points in the derivation such as VI. Building on this work, Adger (2006)
argues that, as formulated, Embick and Noyers (2001) Local Dislocation is overly
restrictive in being ordered after VI. We thus propose to replace Local Dislocation
with a more general mechanism of morpheme Metathesis and Doubling that can
apply either before or after VI.
We make two further central claims about the Linear Operations component.
First, we make a crucial distinction between rules that effect changes in linear order,
and inviolable constraints that impose restrictions on these rules throughout the
derivation in this component. Constraints can be triggering or blocking. A triggering
constraint defines a banned configuration and triggers the application of a repair
rule whose structural description matches this configuration. On the other hand,
blocking constraints are based on structural changes: a blocking constraint defines a
configuration that blocks the application of any rule whose structural change would
result in this configuration. In adopting both rules and constraints, we draw an
explicit parallel with a similar framework for the phonological component proposed
in Calabrese (2005), where a number of arguments are provided that this division
of labor between constraints and rules yields explanatory accounts of several
conspiracy-like phenomena where different rules (often in different languages or
dialects of the same language) can have the same surface effect of satisfying one
general well-formedness condition. This framework provides a specific solution to
the tension between explanatory adequacy (to capture what different phenomena
have in common) and descriptive adequacy (to capture the differences between the
phenomena). We argue that a number of morphological processes in Basque finite
verbs are best accounted for in this type of theory, by proposing several language-
particular constraints that apply across all Basque dialects, but which can be satisfied
by different rules in different dialects. For instance, we argue that the Noninitiality-
repair operation of Ergative Metathesis is not the only possible repair in Basque,
and discuss other repairs, including Ergative and Dative Doubling, and epenthesis
5.1 Introduction 239
of a morphological expletive. The fact that the same edge-related requirement is

potentially met using a repertoire of distinct operations provides a strong argument
for the division of labor between morphological constraints and repair rules that is
proposed here.
Chief among the constraints proposed is a Noninitiality condition on T (the
root of the auxiliary), which accounts for the word-internal second position
effects alluded to above. We also propose other edge-related constraints, such as
Peninitiality (which bans structures where certain elements are too far from the
edge of a domain), as well as morpheme-specific pairwise ordering constraints.
The interplay of constraints together with several linear repair rules, account for
the complex array of facts having to do with the linear order of morphemes in the
Basque finite auxiliary. The constraints apply in different word-internal domains,
which are based on the following definitions:
(1) Terminal X (X 0min, or simply X)
An X 0min is an X 0 that does not dominate any other node. (This is equivalent
to morpheme in DM.)
(2) 0-projection
A 0-projection of a terminal X is a 0-level node headed by X or by a 0-
projection of X.
(3) Maximal 0-projection of X (X 0max )
X 0max is a 0-projection of terminal X that is not dominated by a 0-projection
of X.
(4) M-word
An M-word is a 0-level node that is not dominated by any other 0-level node.
Although many operations discussed so far (such as Impoverishment) have the M-
word as their domain, we argue that the domain relevant to edge-related constraints
is X 0max instead.
The formal implementation of morphological Metathesis is accomplished with
the formalism of Harris and Halle (2005), which we call here Generalized Redu-
plication. The basic insight behind Generalized Reduplication is that morphological
Metathesis is a subcase of the more general process of Partial Reduplication found in
morphophonology, which in turn derives the fact that morphological Metathesis and
Doubling are closely related processes that can alternate in satisfying constraints on
linear order. We show that Doubling is indeed a widely attested dialectal alternative
to Ergative Metathesis and other morpheme displacement operations in Basque
auxiliaries.
Many of these proposals are supported by the existence of parallel phenomena
in a number of typologically diverse languages outside of Basque. In order to
motivate the complete treatment that we provide for Basque, we present in Sect. 5.2
the pieces of the analysis in turn based on case studies from several languages
including Spanish, Old Irish, Amharic, Lithuanian, Italian, English, Romanian, and
Athapaskan languages. Section 5.3 provides an analysis of the placement of the
plural clitic -e, which uses several of the analytical tools motivated earlier, and
which completes our account of the complex behavior of this specific morpheme
in Basque. In Sects. 5.4 and 5.5, we turn to the analysis of Ergative Metathesis in
Basque, illustrating its implementation in terms of Noninitiality and Generalized
Reduplication, with support from the existence of the phenomenon of Ergative
Doubling. We show that Ergative Metathesis is a demonstrably morphotactic
(and postsyntactic) condition, as it has no effect on argument structure or the
syntax-semantics interface, and furthermore that it is a linear operation with
clearly definable properties that distinguish it from other postsyntactic processes
such as Impoverishment. Section 5.6 examines other repairs for the Noninitiality
requirement of the Basque auxiliary root, arguing that not only ergatives, but also
dative and allocutive clitics can be used in satisfying this constraint in certain
dialects. Section 5.7 examines in more depth the role that hierarchical structure
has on linear order. We argue that Linearization is not a process that replaces
hierarchical relations with linear order; rather, it adds linear precedence relations
to hierarchically organized structures. We provide evidence for this view from
the interaction between morpheme Metathesis and Doubling and two empirical
phenomena that have received little or no attention on previous literature on the
topic: Root Reduplication in Ondarru, and the placement of modal particles in
Basque finite verbs. Section 5.8 concludes with some final remarks.
5.2 Generalized Reduplication and Constraints

on Morpheme Order
In order to place Basque morphological Metathesis and Doubling phenomena

within a broader typology of morpheme displacement, we begin with case studies
from other languages. These case studies are designed to bolster support for the
following claims that play an important role in our analysis. First, morphological
Doubling is often an alternant of Metathesis, and both processes can be unified
under Harris and Halles (2005) Generalized Reduplication formalism. Second,
morpheme reordering phenomena are the result of the interaction of constraints
and rules. Taking a cue from Calabreses (2005) analysis of several phonological
phenomena, we adopt a framework for the Linear Operations module in which
rules such as Metathesis, Doubling, and Epenthesis are triggered (and in some
cases, blocked) in response to universal or language-particular constraints on
linear representations. While the foremost of these constraints is Noninitiality
(and other non-edge constraints) in different domains, we also discuss others such
as Peninitiality, and morpheme-specific conditions on morpheme order. The case
studies discussed in this section include phenomena from Spanish (Sect. 5.2.1), Old
Irish (5.2.2), Amharic (5.2.3), Lithuanian (5.2.3), Italian (5.2.4), English (5.2.5),
Romanian (5.2.5), and Athapaskan languages (5.2.6).
5.2 Generalized Reduplication and Constraints on Morpheme Order 241
5.2.1 Metathesis and Doubling in Spanish Agreement

Morphology
We ultimately will offer an analysis of morphological Metathesis and related

phenomena in Basque auxiliaries based on the theoretical tools developed in dif-
ferent ways in Raimy (2000), Harris and Halle (2005), Halle (2008) and Frampton
(2009). The related formalisms proposed in these works were intially designed to
account for reduplication processes in phonology. We adopt the specific formalism
in Harris and Halle (2005) and Halle (2008), mostly because it is explicitly designed
to account for morphological phenomena not traditionally analyzed in the same way
as Reduplication. One of the main virtues of this formalism is that it provides a
unified framework for displacement (Metathesis) and copying (Doubling) of linear
sequences, in a way that it leads one to expect the two processes to be closely
related, as is the case with the processes in Basque auxiliaries examined in this
chapter. In the present work, we extend the formalism so that it incorporates
reference to hierarchical structure. In particular, hierarchical relations play a role
in the linear constraints to be discussed, in that the former establish the domains
in which the latter apply. The reader should therefore keep in mind that while
much of our exposition displays Reduplication and Metathesis as operating on one-
dimensional objects, the specific cases of linearity-based morphotactics in Basque
require reference to hierarchical structure (in particular, labeled projections of
certain heads) to delimit their domain of application.
In this subsection, we first illustrate the formalism with examples of phonological
Reduplication, and then summarize Harris and Halles (2005) analysis of morpho-
logical Metathesis and Doubling phenomena in Spanish agreement and enclitic
complexes. Reduplication is a well-studied phonological phenomenon by which a
given phonological sequence in a word is duplicated (i.a. Marantz 1982; McCarthy
and Prince 1995; Raimy 2000; Halle 2008; Frampton 2009). The following is an
illustrative example1:
(5) Full Reduplication: plural in Mangarrayi (Raimy 2000:135)
a. jimgan jimgimgan
knowledgeable one knowledgeable ones
b. gabuji gababuji
old person old persons
Reduplication is always triggered in a given morphological context, and affects a
contiguous sequence of phonological segments defined in different ways depending
on the specific reduplicative construction. In Mangarrayi (5), plurals of nouns
are realized by reduplicating a string in the noun containing the first vowel
1 The dashes in (5) and other examples of phonological Reduplication below are present only to
identify the reduplicated string, and do not necessarily represent any relevant phonological or
morphological boundary.
and the immediately following consonants up to the next vowel. (5) exemplifies
Full Reduplication, since the entire targeted sequence is reduplicated. In Partial
Reduplication, only part of the targeted sequence is copied:
(6) Partial Reduplication: plural in Madurese (Marantz 1982:451)
bwqn wqbwqn
fruit fruits
In this example, the targeted sequence bwq surfaces in its entirety in the rightmost
copy, but only the rightmost CVC subsequence (wq) appears in the leftmost copy.
In Harris and Halle (2005), Full and Partial Reduplication are the result of rules
that introduce certain boundary symbols in the representation that are interpreted
as instructions to copy a linear sequence and to delete parts of it in the two
copies. We will refer to this formalism and to all phenomena to be analyzed using
it as Generalized Reduplication. The copying process is effected by a pair of
double square brackets (symbols used to distinguish them from morphosyntactic
constituent boundaries), which delimit the linear sequence to be doubled:
(7) Full Reduplication
ABCDE
ABCD
ABCDBCDE
For instance, in Mangarrayi (5a), the rule introduces square brackets in the sequence
specified below (5), resulting in Full Reduplication:
(8) jimgan
jimgan
jimgimgan
A different type of symbol results in deletion of part of the sequence in one of the
copies. A right angled bracket deletes a subsequence at the left edge of the leftmost
copy of the original sequence:
(9) Partial Reduplication: deletion in the leftmost copy
ABCD
ABCD
ACBC-D
For ease of exposition, we add an intermediate representation that highlights the
subsequences to be deleted by enclosing them in a grey box:
(10) Partial Reduplication: deletion in the leftmost copy
ABCD
ABCD
A BCBCD
ACBCD
This type of Partial Reduplication is illustrated in the Madurese example in (6):

(11) bwqn
bwqn
b wqbwqn
wqbwqn
On the other hand, a left angled bracket deletes a rightmost subsequence in the
rightmost copy:
(12) Partial Reduplication: deletion in the rightmost copy
ABCD
ABCD
ABCBC D
ABCBD
The following example illustrates this:
(13) Partial Reduplication: Russian infinitive (Harris and Halle 2005:199)
a. kolet kolot
stab.PRS.3.SG stab.INF
b. kolt
kolt
kolo lt
kolot
The targeted sequence in Russian is the sequence mid vowel (o) + liquid, the
latter being deleted in the rightmost copy (i.e. only the vowel is reduplicated). The
formalism thus derives both Full and Partial Reduplication with a relatively simple
and unified formalism.
Harris and Halle make two further observations about the formalism that prove
crucial in accounting for related morphological phenomena. First, although the
linear sequences to be copied or deleted are defined in phonological terms in
Reduplication processes, the formalism is also compatible with definitions based
on morphological criteria, that is, the sequences can be morphological exponents.
Second, the theory accounts for Metathesis (permutation of elements) without any
additional formal devices. Harris and Halle illustrate both claims with Metathesis
and Doubling in Spanish agreement and enclitic complexes.2 In this language,
pronominal clitics, which are always hosted by verbs, are enclitic in imperatives:
2 We only discuss here the aspects of this phenomenon that are relevant for our analysis of Basque
Metathesis and Doubling processes discussed in later sections. See Harris and Halle (2005) for
further details.
(14) Spanish enclitics in imperatives

a. Venda -0/ -lo.
sell -IMPR.2.SG -CL.ACC.M.SG
Sell (Sg) it (imperative).
b. Venda -n -lo.
sell -IMPR.2.PL -CL.ACC.M.SG
Sell (Pl) it.
As shown in these examples, enclitics attach to the right of verbal inflection. There
are, however, dialectal variants of (14b) where the plural inflectional exponent -n
surfaces further to the right:
(15) Metathesis and Doubling in Spanish imperatives
(Harris and Halle 2005:196)
a. Venda -lo -n.
b. Venda -n -lo -n.
Example (15a) is an instance of Local Dislocation in the sense of Embick and Noyer
(2001): it involves displacement of a morpheme after Vocabulary Insertion. Harris
and Halle provide convicing arguments to this effect: the targeted element is the
plural exponent -n (not the phonological segment n), and the output is subject to
syllabification conditions that would be unexpected if the movement applied to
abstract structures (Harris and Halle 2005:202, 205206).
What is interesting is that a dialectal variant of displacement (15a) is the
possibility of doubling in (15b), where plural -n surfaces in two positions: one copy
is in-situ preceding the clitic, and the other copy is in the displaced position after
the clitic. (15a) can thus be analyzed in the same way as Partial Reduplication3:
(16) Doubling in Spanish imperatives (Harris and Halle 2005:203204)
a. Structural description: X nPl Cl Y
(i) Insert to the immediate left of nPl , and to the immediate right
of Cl.
(ii) Insert to the immediate left of Cl.
(17) venda n lo
venda n lo
venda nlo n lo
vendanlon
As in parallel phonological cases, Doubling of plural -n at the right edge of the
word is analyzed as a case of Partial Reduplication, which involves insertion of a
left angled bracket. The only difference with respect to phonological Reduplication
is that the targeted sequences are defined in morphological terms.
3 Our statement of Harris and Halles (2005) rules differs slightly from theirs, but only in details of
notation. The clitic variable Cl in (16) is subject to dialect-particular restrictions (Harris and Halle
2005:210213).
This formalism derives the Local Dislocation case (15a) as a case of Metathesis,
by simply adding insertion of a right angled bracket to (16):
(18) Metathesis in Spanish imperatives (Harris and Halle 2005:203204)
a. Structural description: X nPl Cl Y
(i) Insert to the immediate left of nPl , and to the immediate right
of Cl.
(ii) Insert to the immediate left of Cl.
(19) venda n lo
venda n lo
venda n lo n lo
vendalon
The main advantage of using the Generalized Reduplication formalism, therefore,
is that Local Dislocation/Metathesis and Partial Reduplication/Doubling are simple
variants of the same type of rule in this theory, the difference being only the presence
or absence of a certain type of symbol.4 Therefore, the fact that these are dialectal
variants of the same construction in Spanish is predicted under this formalism; in
fact, the formalism leads one to expect variation between Metathesis and Doubling
in intralinguistic varieties closely separated in space and/or time.5
In the sections that follow, we will examine Metathesis processes in Basque aux-
iliaries that, like the Spanish construction discussed above, alternate with Doubling
in a way that justifies applying the same Generalized Reduplication formalism.
However, unlike several other processes examined in this section, the elements
affected by the rules in Basque are not phonologically realized morphemes, but
abstract terminal nodes. Evidence for this claim comes from the observation that
these processes must occur before Vocabulary Insertion, since they feed allomorphic
alternations that are effected at the point where exponents are inserted in terminals.
This justifies extending the Generalized Reduplication formalism to operations
occuring before Vocabulary Insertion. Furthermore, these processes must occur
after Linearization, since the formalism is crucially stated in terms of linearized
sequences. We thus provide evidence for the formalism by showing that it is also
applicable to operations applying in parts of the grammar that are different from
those it was originally designed for.
4 Reiss and Simpson (2009) provides a computational implementation of derivations using this
notation, including a web interface available for user exploration.
5 Haspelmath (1993) discusses the diachronic process of the externalization of inflection, which
essentially occurs when a derivational affix becomes trapped inside an inflectional affix. Under
this account, a constraint requiring the morphotactic ordering of derivation before inflection is
what triggers the Metathesis of inflectional -n outside of reflexives and object clitics. Intriguingly,
Haspelmath (1993) notes the parallel between doubled (what he calls hybrid) forms, and
Metathesis, arguing that the doubled forms exists as gradual steps on the way to complete
Metathesis.
5.2.2 Noninitiality, Metathesis, and Allomorph Selection

in Old Irish
In Embick and Noyers (2001) typology of postsyntactic morpheme displacements,

Lowering adjoins a morpheme to the head of its complement and precedes Vocab-
ulary Insertion (VI), while Local Dislocation affects linearly adjacent morphemes
after VI. Adger (2006) argues that several phenomena in Old Irish verbs are due
to displacement rules that, like Embick and Noyers Local Dislocation, must be
stated as affecting adjacent morphemes, but nevertheless must precede VI. In
this subsection, we implement Adgers analysis and insights in the Generalized
Reduplication formalism adopted here. This case provides illustration of our claim
that Generalized Reduplication processes can apply prior to VI, a crucial element
in our analysis of Metathesis and Doubling phenomena in Basque verbs. We
furthermore argue that the displacement rules responsible for morpheme order in
Old Irish verbs are triggered by a Noninitiality constraint, stated in a framework
in which constraints on linear order can be satified by different rules in different
contexts.
Adger (2006) provides several arguments that Old Irish verbal complexes are
structured according to the following abstract template where X is an element in
first position set off by a special boundary from the rest of the structure:
(20) Old Irish verbal template

X . [Y + Z + W ]
A number of phonological domain effects, such as assignment of word-level

stress, diagnose the presence of this boundary after the first element (Adger
2006:613615). Morphosyntactic evidence for this boundary comes from the fact
that it is the placement site for object clitics (Adger 2006:618620):
(21) Old Irish object clitics

a. Imm -us -(n)dch.
PV - CL. OBJ.3. PL -protect. C.3. SG . PRS
He protects them. (Old Irish, Adger 2006:619)
b. N -s -(n)im -dich.
CNEG - CL. OBJ.3. PL - PV -protect.C.3.SG.PRS
He does not protect them. (Old Irish, Adger 2006:619)
As illustrated in these examples, two types of elements occupy this first position.
Both sentences illustrate Old Irish compound verbs, which contain a verb preceded
by one or more preverbs, and whose meaning is often not transparently derived
from its component parts (in a way similar to particle verbs in English and other
languages). The preverb in (21a) occupies the X position in (20). However, in the
context of complementizer-like morphemes traditionally referred to as conjunct
particles, such as the negative morpheme in (21b), the preverb surfaces after the
object clitic, that is, after the special boundary in (20). In this case, the conjunct
particle appears in the first position preceding the object clitic.
The postsyntactic nature of these data is revealed by the fact that while preverbs
and conjunct particles do not have a common syntax, they do share the linear
morphotactic property of being the first morpheme within the verbal complex.
According to Adger (2006:611613), preverbs combine with verbs within the VP
to form compound verbs. As in other VSO languages in Celtic, the verb moves to
T in Old Irish finite clauses, and in the case of compound verbs, verb movement
carries preverbs along (Adger 2006:606610):
(22) Verbal syntax in Old Irish
TP
T VP
V T . . . tPV +V . . .
(PV) V
On the other hand, conjunct particles are complementizer-like elements that are
generated in the higher functional field. This includes the negative morpheme in
(21b) (Adger 2006:609610, 639):
(23) The higher functional field in (21b)
[C-NegP C-Neg [TP [PV V T] [VP . . . tPV +V . . . ]]]
This contrasts with the structure of sentences without conjunct particles:
(24) The higher functional field in (21a)
[TP [PV V T] [VP . . . tPV +V . . . ]]
Crucially, the syntax of conjunct particles and preverbs is very different, and can
therefore not be responsible for the generalizations captured by the template in (20),
such as the clitic placement facts in (21). Adger thus capitalizes on the fact that the
conjunct particle and the preverb are initial within their respective verbal complexes
in (23) and (24), respectively. In particular, he takes the high functional head Force
to play a central role in accounting for the facts:
(25) Force in (21b) and (21a)
a. [ForceP Force [C-NegP C-Neg [TP [PV V T] [VP . . . tPV +V . . . ]]]]
b. [ForceP Force [TP [PV V T] [VP . . . tPV +V . . . ]]]
Adger (2006:632) proposes that Force undergoes a Local Dislocation operation
that metathesizes it with the immediately following element. In the Generalized
Reduplication formalism adopted here, the rule is stated as follows:
(26) Old Irish: Force Metathesis

a. Structural description: Force X Y
(i) Insert to the immediate left of Force, and to the immediate
right of X.
(ii) Insert to the immediate left of X.
(27) a. Metathesis in (21b)
Force C-Neg PV V T
Force C-Neg PV V T
Force C-Neg Force C-Neg PV V T
C-Neg Force PV V T
b. Metathesis in (21a)
Force PV V T
Force PV V T
Force PV Force PV V T
PV Force V T
The Force head thus plays a crucial role in accounting for the phonological domain
effects alluded to above, which Adger (2006:632636) analyzes in terms of insertion
of a prosodic boundary to the immediate right of Force. Under the assumption that
object clitics are hosted in Force,6 this also accounts for the clitic placement facts
above: right-adjacent to the conjunct particle in (21b), and to the preverb in (21a).
In a sentence without preverbs or complementizers, Force metathesizes with the
V+T complex, as shown by the placement of object clitics in this type of sentence,
which appear to the right of the verbal complex:
(28) Displacement of Force in the absence of preverbs or conjunct particles
Comallaid -i.
fulfill.A.3.SG.PRS -CL.OBJ.3.SG.M
He fulfills it. (Old Irish, Adger 2006:618)
We propose that this is due to a separate Metathesis rule:
(29) Old Irish: Force-VT Metathesis
a. Structural description: Force V T
(i) Insert to the immediate left of Force, and to the immediate
right of T.
(ii) Insert to the immediate left of V.
6 Adger (2006:646) proposes that object clitics are moved to a Topic projection immediately below
Force. The latter adjoins to the clitic by a Local Dislocation rule.
This rule metathesizes Force (and any object clitic that may be present) to the right
of V+T:
(30) Metathesis in (28)
Force V T
Force V T
Force V T Force V T
V T Force
Note that this context meets the structural descriptions of both Force Metathesis (26)
and Force-VT Metathesis (29). Since the structural description of the latter is more
specific, the Elsewhere Condition (Kiparsky 1973) determines that it is the one that
applies in this context.
We would like to emphasize the point made above that a syntactic account for
this displacement is unlikely, given the heterogenous syntactic nature of conjunct
particles, preverbs, and V+T. On the other hand, a postsyntactic linearity-based
account captures the generalization that, given the right context, all these elements
can be in the same linear position in the verbal complex (i.e. to the immediate right
of Force in Adgers terms), and can thus form the base for the correct account of the
morphophonological facts mentioned above.
Although the surface placement of Force and object clitics in Old Irish is due to
two rules applying in somewhat different contexts, Force and object clitics always
surface in noninitial position. We account for this generalization in terms of a
Noninitiality constraint that triggers application of these rules7 :
(31) Force-Noninitiality (Old Irish)
Force0max cannot be leftmost within ForceP.
Our analysis therefore captures what is common to all cases above, while at the
same time it also explains why Force metathesizes with two morphemes (V and T)
in (28), but with a single morpheme (a preverb or a complementizer) in others.8
We reach similar conclusions in our discussion of Ergative Metathesis and related
phenomena in Basque in Sects. 5.45.7, where we argue that a similar Noninitiality
constraint in this language may be satisfied in different ways in different dialects.
We now turn to the evidence mentioned at the beginning of this subsection to the
effect that Metathesis in Old Irish precedes VI. Old Irish finite forms are organized
into two paradigms, traditionally called conjunct and absolute.9 This illustrated with
the present tense paradigm of berid carry in Table 5.1. The distribution of these
two types of inflection is illustrated in all examples above, where conjunct forms
7 Note that reference to Force0max is needed here (as opposed to simply Force), in order to account
for cases where an object clitic is adjoined to it.
8 Adger (2006:637639) analyzes all cases in terms of a single Local Dislocation rule. However,
the analysis is supplemented by a previous Local Dislocation rule that affixes T to V, and relies on
special definitions of morphological constituents that we believe are not necessary.
9 Finite verbs can also appear in so-called relative form. See Adger (2006:640) for an analysis that
is compatible with our account.

Table 5.1 Present tense of

Absolute Conjunct
bedid carry in Old Irish
(Adger 2006:616) First singular biru biur
First plural bermai beram
Second singular biri bir
Second plural beirthe berid
Third singular berid beir
Third plural berait berat
are glossed with C and absolute forms with A. It can be stated as follows (Adger
2006:615617):
(32) Conjunct and absolute inflection in Old Irish
a. Conjunct inflection surfaces when the verbal complex contains a
preverb or a conjunct particle: examples (21a) and (21b).
b. Absolute inflection surfaces in all other contexts: example (28).
This split correlates with the two Metathesis rules above. In the absence of preverbs
or conjunct particles, Force metathesizes with V+T, and thus surfaces to the
immediate right of T; otherwise, Force metathesizes with a conjunct particle or
a preverb, and thus is not right-adjacent to T. As a result, as shown in Adger
(2006:636645), the distribution of the two types of inflection can be analyzed
in terms of contextual allomorphy. More specifically, VI of T affixes from the
conjunct or absolute series is contextually dependent on the presence of Force to
the immediate right of T:
(33) Contextual allomorphy in Old Irish verbal inflection
a. expabs T / Force
b. expcon j T
That is, absolute inflectional affixes are inserted in T when left-adjacent to Force,
and conjunct affixes in other contexts.
Crucially, Metathesis of Force must apply prior to VI, since the latter is sensitive
to the output of former. As discussed in Adger (2006), this provides evidence that
Metathesis rules (in his terms, Local Dislocation) can apply before Vocabulary
Insertion. Further evidence for this claim can be found in Sects. 5.35.7, where it
is shown that several General Reduplication rules in Basque verbs also determine
allomorphy patterns.
5.2.3 Noninitiality in Nonclausal Domains in Amharic

and Lithuanian
The existence of second position effects at the clausal level is very well known
(e.g. V2 in German, second position clitics in South Slavic), but we wish to call
attention to the fact that second position phenomena may be relativized to a variety
of syntactic and morphological domains of different sizes, such as DPs in Amharic

and a word-internal domain in Lithuanian.
An interesting case study can be found in the distribution of the Amharic definite
article, as discussed by Kramer (2010). Kramer argues that the definite article, a
D head that is underlyingly initial in the DP, has a postsyntactic Noninitiality re-
quirement that is relativized to the domain of the DP. The repair operation to satisfy
Noninitiality is a dislocation operation that moves the Definite article -u (-w after
vowels) to the right of the first word to its right, which in the simplest case, is a noun:
(34) Definiteness marking in Amharic
bet -u
house -DEF
the house (Amharic, Kramer 2010:197)
However, if the first word to the right of the determiner is a prenominal adjective, the
D dislocates to the right of this adjective (35a), and in fact treats an entire adjective
phrase (AP) as a single word, moving to the right of the adjective even when the AP
includes a degree modifier (35b) or takes a nominal complement (35c). If there is
more than one AP, the D head surfaces to the right of the first one (35d).
(35) Definiteness marking in Amharic APs
a. t1ll1k -u bet
big -DEF house
the big house (Amharic, Kramer 2010:198)
b. [ btam t1ll1k -u ]AP bet
[ very big -DEF ]AP house
the very big house (Amharic, Kramer 2010:198)
c. [ l-mist-u tamma -u ]AP gs bahriy
[ to-wife-his faithful -DEF ]AP character
the character faithful to his wife (Amharic, Kramer 2010:199)
d. t1ll1k -u t1kur bet
big -DEF black house
the big black house (Amharic, Kramer 2010:200)
Kramer (2010:212214) argues that APs are phases, meaning that they are units
of spell-out to the phonological component that may be derivationally turned into
giant words (Uriagereka 1999; Chomsky 2001). Since spelling out a phase turns
it, for the purposes of external syntax, into an item whose internal contents are
opaque and which essentially behaves as a single word, the operation that moves D
to the right of the first word that follows it will move it to the end of the entire first
AP. Indeed, a further property of Amharic that makes the relevance of phasehood
convincing for the placement of D (as opposed to, say, there being something special
about adjectives getting together with D) is that the language has prenominal relative
clauses. The second position D of Amharic moves exactly to the right of the entire
relative clause (RC), confirming that the RC (whose internal structure involves a CP
phase) is treated as a single word for the purposes of clitic placement:
(36) Definiteness marking in Amharic relative clauses
[ 1bab y-gddl- -w ]RC l1
[ snake C-kill.PRF-3.SG.M -DEF ]RC boy
the boy who killed a snake (Amharic, Kramer 2010:199)
Kramer proposes that the dislocation of the definite article is accomplished by
the mechanism of Local Dislocation, following Embick and Noyer (2001). In the
Generalized Reduplication formalism adopted here, we state this rule as follows:
(37) D Metathesis in Amharic
a. Structural description: D X,
where D is a definite determiner and X is a spelled out phase.
(i) Insert to the immediate left of D, and to the immediate right
of X.
Under the assumption that M-words are phases, this correctly accounts for the
placement of the article in simple DPs such as (34), as well as in examples with
modified nouns in (35) and (36).
Amharic thus provides a bona fide instance of a second position phenomenon
within a domain smaller than the clause, namely the DP. This illustrates a more
global point about the generality of non-edge effects as arising in a variety of
domains, and potentially banning an element from occurring at either one of the
edges of this domain.
Further illustration of this point comes from Lithuanian, where, as argued in
Nevis and Joseph (1992), the reflexive morpheme -s(i) is subject to a word-internal
Wackernagel second position condition, which we implement here as a Noninitiality
constraint. This morpheme is illustrated in the following examples from Nevis and
Joseph (1992:95):
(38) Lithuanian -s(i): reflexive
a. j sk -e
she say -PST.3.SG
she said
b. j sk -e -si
she say -PST.3.SG -REFL
she said herself to be
(39) Lithuanian -s(i): reciprocal
a. mt -ote
see -PRS.2.PL
you(Pl) see
b. mt -ote -s
see -PRS.2.PL -REFL
you see each other (meet)
(40) Lithuanian -(s)i: anticausative
a. kel -i
raise -PRS.1.SG
I lift up
b. kel -io -si
raise -PRS.1.SG -REFL
I get up
(41) Lithuanian -(s)i: other uses
a. tk -ime
believe -PRS.1.PL
we believe
b. tk -ime -s
believe -PRS.1.PL -REFL
we expect
Reflexive -s(i) has a range of uses typically associated with reflexive morphology
in Indo-European, such as reflexive, reciprocal, passive, and anticausative (Nevis
and Joseph 1992:106), and other more idiosyncratic ones, as in (41). Even in uses
that can be considered typical of reflexives, the meaning of the resulting verb is
not completely compositional, as in (38). We assume that it is the realization of a
v category (represented below as vR ) that takes VP as its complement (see Embick
and Noyer (2001) for a different view):
(42) Lithuanian -s(i) as the realization of v
[vP vR [VP V . . . ]]
This low attachment in the structure of the clause accounts for its Argument
Structure-changing properties, as well as its (limited) noncompositional semantic
properties. This morpheme can also combine with verbal complexes containing
preverbs, preverbal morphemes with lexical and/or aspectual content (all examples
from Nevis and Joseph (1992:9596)):
(43) Lithuanian -s(i) in the context of one preverb
a. j at -sk -e
she PV -say -PST.3.SG
she answered
b. j at -si -sk -e
she PV -REFL -say -PST.3.SG
she refused
(44) Lithuanian -s(i) in the context of two preverbs

a. pri -pa -n -ti
PV - PV -know - NF
to acknowledge
b. pri -si -pa -n -ti
PV - REFL - PV -know - NF
to confess
Following Embick and Noyer (2001:579), we assume that preverbs combine with
their host V inside the VP, and that the verb, together with any adjoined preverbs
moves to vR . The resulting complex head moves to T, yielding the following
structure after Linearization (this is similar to the analysis of Old Irish verbal syntax
in Sect. 5.2.2):
(45) Linearization in Lithuanian verbs with a reflexive morpheme
T
vR T
vR V
s(i)
(PV) (PV) V
In what follows, we assume this structure in accounting for the surface position of
-s(i).
The surface order of the reflexive -s(i) depends on the internal structure of
the preverb-verb complex. In simple verbs without preverbs such as (38)(41), it
surfaces to the right of T, i.e. at the end of the verbal word. In the context of preverbs
it attaches to the immediate right of the first preverb, as shown in (43) and (44). We
propose that this is due to the following constraint:
(46) vR -Noninitiality (Lithuanian)
Terminal vR cannot be leftmost within v0max
R .
That is, the constraint triggers the application of Metathesis rules that displace vR
from the left edge of its maximal projection within the word. Two Metathesis rules
are needed to account for the facts. In the absence of preverbs, as in (38)(41), the
reflexive metathesizes to the right of V and T:
(47) Reflexive-VT Metathesis in Lithuanian
a. Structural description: [v0max vR V T
R
(i) Insert to the immedate left of vR , and to the immediate right
of T.
(ii) Insert to the immediate left of V.
If any preverbs interevene between the reflexive and V, a more general Metathesis
rule applies:
(48) Reflexive Metathesis in Lithuanian
a. Structural description: [v0max vR X Y
R
(i) Insert to the immedate left of vR , and to the immediate right
of X.
As illustrated in (43) and (44), the result is Metathesis with the leftmost preverb.
As was the case with Old Irish (Sect. 5.2.2), our analysis captures the placement
of Lithuanian reflexive -si in terms of a linear-based Noninitiality requirement that
triggers one of two Metathesis rules that displace it away from the left edge of the
domain, which in this case is the maximal 0-level projection of vR .10
To conclude this section, Amharic and Lithuanian illustrate our claim that non-
edge constraints can apply in different domains, and thus provide support for our
claim that a similar word-internal Noninitiality constraint is in effect in Basque finite
verbs, as discussed in Sects. 5.45.7 below.
5.2.4 Nonfinality and Morphological Epenthesis in Italian

Infinitives
In this subsection, we discuss the distribution of epenthetic -e in Italian infinitivals,

based on data from Cardinaletti and Shlonsky (2004) (henceforth C&S). We argue
that it is a case of Nonfinality, a non-edge constraint affecting the right edge of a
domain, and that -e is an epenthetic morpheme that satisfies this constraint when
other morphosyntactic operations do not apply.
In a restructuring context in this language, an embedded pronominal clitic can
attach as an enclitic to the infinitive (49a), or it can climb as a proclitic to the matrix
finite verb (49b). Interestingly, an epenthetic -e appears at the end of the infinitive
under clitic climbing:
(49) Clitic climbing in Italian
a. Vorrei andar -ci con Maria.
want.COND.1.SG go.INF -CL.LOC with Maria
10 In Embick and Noyer (2001:578580), the placement of the reflexive morpheme is due to a single
Local Dislocation rule. It must, however, be supplemented by a previous rule that affixes V to T
prior to dislocation of the reflexive. These differences in detail do not alter the main point here,
namely that this Lithuanian morpheme is subject to a constraint preventing it from surfacing in
initial position within v0max
R . Unlike the case of Old Irish (Sect. 5.2.2), it is indeterminate at present
whether Metathesis in Lithuanian occurs before or after VI. Perhaps further investigation into the
-s/-si alternation will shed light on this issue.
b. Ci vorrei andar -e con Maria.

CL . LOC want.COND.1.SG go.INF -CL.EP with Maria
Id like to go there with Maria.
(Italian, Cardinaletti and Shlonsky 2004:521)
C&S argue that the enclitic and -e are in complementary distribution in infinitivals:
whenever the infinitival does not have an enclitic attached to it (e.g. under clitic
climbing), epenthetic -e is inserted. The only exception has to do with contexts with
more than one restructuring infinitival. Although the lowest infinitival verb displays
the -e/enclitic alternation, other infinitivals in the sequence do not:
(50) Distribution of epenthetic -e in Italian infinitives
a. Vorrei poter -ci andar -e con Maria.
want.COND.1.SG be.able.INF -CL.LOC go.INF -CL.EP with Maria
b. Vorrei poter andar -ci con Maria.
want.COND.1.SG be.able.INF go.INF -CL.LOC with Maria
c. Ci vorrei poter andar -e con Maria.
CL . LOC want. COND .1. SG be.able.INF go. INF - CL . EP with Maria
Id like to be able to go there with Maria.
(Italian, Cardinaletti and Shlonsky 2004:522)
Although the intermediate infinitive potere can host enclitic ci (50a), it does not
have epenthetic -e in its absence (50b) and (50c).11
We propose that the verb sequence in a restructuring context forms a prosodic
domain, the exact status of which is not highly relevant for our purposes. Further-
more, a non-edge constraint requires the infinitival morpheme -r to not be final in
this domain. We can refer to this constraint as Nonfinality. This requirement can
be satisfied by the morphosyntactic mechanisms that result in restructuring and
clitic climbing,12 and in their absence, by insertion of epenthetic -e. The verb poter
satisfies this requirement in (50a) because of enclitic ci, and in both (50b) and (50c),
because it is followed by the final verb andar. Crucially, since poter is not final in
the sequence, epenthetic -e is not needed and therefore it is blocked in all cases. On
11 Cardinaletti and Shlonsky (2004:522523) provide convincing argumentation that there is no
clitic climbing to intermediate positions within a restructuring domain. In particular, the fact that
the clitic ci in (50a) is attached to the intermediate verb poter is due to the fact that the restructuring
domain in this example only contains the intermediate verb and the final verb andare, to the
exclusion of the matrix verb vorrei.
12 In C&Ss analysis sentences with clitic climbing are not derivationally related to those without
climbing. They propose that climbing clitics are generated in a high position in the functional
structure of the clause, as opposed to in-situ clitics, which are generated in a lower position. We
remain agnostic as to the exact nature of clitic climbing. We would like to note, however, that clitic
climbing can result in two copies of the clitic in some Romance languages, such as Piedmontese
(Parry 1995) and some dialects of Spanish (Silva-Corvaln 1989). This strongly suggests to us an
analysis in terms of postsyntactic Generalized Reduplication rules.
the other hand, andar satisfies Nonfinality by virtue of the absence of clitic climbing
in (49a) and (50b). However, since this verb is final in the sequence, clitic climbing
forces the insertion of -e in (49b), (50a) and (50c) in order to satisfy the constraint.
This analysis contrasts with the one found in C&S (528536), where it is
proposed that -e is a clitic that can only be generated in a low clitic position.13 This
accounts for why it never climbs and only appears attached to the final infinitival in
a restructuring verb sequence (see footnote 12). In order to account for the (partial)
complementary distribution between -e and (other) clitics, C&S propose that this
-e is part of several Italian clitics that end in i or e, such as m-i (first singular) and
n-e (genitive/ablative), which, accordingly, they analyze as involving clitic clusters.
The underlying form is /i/, and a phonological rule lowers it to e after a coronal,
resulting in m-i vs. n-e and -r-e in infinitivals.
C&S note two potential problems with their analysis. First, this hypothesized
-i/e clitic does not seem to surface in the presence of other clitics such as lo (third
singular masculine accusative):
(51) Absence of -e/i in nonclimbing contexts
Vorrei veder -lo(*i).
want.COND.1.SG see.INF -CL.ACC.3.SG.M
Id like to see it. (Italian, Cardinaletti and Shlonsky 2004:529)
As C&S point out, this has a natural phonological explanation: cases like this result
in diphthongs that are not allowed in unstressed syllables in Italian. Second, under
the proposal that clitics ending in -i/e contain the -i/e clitic, the fact that climbed
clitics also contain this vowel is problematic (e.g. ci in (49b)), since, by hypothesis,
i/e is generated in a low position (which yields in-situ cliticization). The same
problem arises with in-situ clitic clusters, where each clitic has a separate vowel:
(52) Multiple occurrences of -i/e in in-situ clusters
voluto andar -se -ne.
be.PRS.3.SG want.PPART.M.SG walk.INF -CL.REFL -CL.ABL
He wanted to leave. (Italian, Cardinaletti and Shlonsky 2004:534)
They propose that these additional vowels are the result of phonological epenthesis
in order to avoid a consonant cluster. This, however, makes the prediction that all
clitics of this type lack final -i/e when followed by a vowel. This prediction is not
borne out. When followed by a vowel-initial verb, clitic ne retains its vowel14 :
(53) Clitic ne preceding a vowel
Essi ne hanno comprati cinque.
those CL.GEN have.PRS.3.PL buy.PPART.M.PL five
They have bought five of those. (Italian)
13 See C&S (530531) for arguments against a phonological analysis of the distribution of
infinitival -e in terms of a truncation rule.
14 We would like to thank Giuliano Bocci (personal communication) for this example.
A further problem with C&Ss account has to do with the distribution of their
hypothesized -i/e clitic. It is generated in two contexts: attached to another clitic
(e.g. (50b), (51)) and attached to infinitives (e.g. (49b), (50a)). However, C&S do
not provide an explanation for why it does not appear, for instance, attached to finite
verbs in the absence of some other clitic:
(54) Absence of -e/i in finite contexts
a. Ammiro larte tipografica di questa collana.
admire.PRS.1.SG the.art typographic of this series.
I admire the typographic art of this series.
(Italian, Wanner 1987:435)
b. Ne ammiro larte tipografica.
CL . GEN admire. PRS .1. SG the.art typographic
I admire its typograhic art. (Italian, Wanner 1987:435)
(54b) is the ne-cliticized version of (54a); otherwise, the two examples are identical.
Under C&Ss analysis, the former contains the -i/e clitic, but the latter does not.
Thus, C&S are forced to assuming a dependence between this clitic and other clitics
in finite contexts that is unattested with any other clitic in Italian. If the presence of
-i/e were independent of the presence of other clitics, (54a) should have this clitic,
contrary to fact.
None of these problems arise in the analysis of infinitival -e proposed here. Since
we do not identify it with a clitic, the absence of i/e in (51) and (54a) is expected, and
so is its presence in the context of all the clitcs in (49b), (52) and (53). Therefore,
an account of infinitival -e in terms of morphological epenthesis is to be preferred.
To conclude, Italian infinitival -e illustrates two claims made here that are
important in our analysis of morpheme displacement phenomena in Basque. First,
non-edge constraints have an effect on the surface placement of certain morphemes.
They can apply at different domains, and can make reference to either the left
or right edge of the domain. Second, when no other morphotactic operation is
available, epenthesis is a possible repair triggered by a non-edge constraint.
5.2.5 Multiple Wh-Movement and Constraints on Distance

to the Edge
In this subsection, we discuss the contrast between languages that effect multiple
overt movement of wh-phrases and those where a single overt movement is allowed.
We propose that all these languages have multiple wh-movement syntactically
(Pesetsky 2000), but that a postsyntactic Peninitiality constraint forces all wh-
chains but one to be pronounced in the tail. This analysis, which has precedents
in the analysis of certain phenomena in multiple wh-movement languages, provides
evidence that overt manifestations of displacement operations can be the result of
satisfaction of multiple constraints on the surface position of certain designated
elements in the structure.
In many languages, wh-phrases are displaced overtly to the periphery of the

clause in wh-questions, a movement that is standardly assumed to target the specifier
position of C in order to satisfy a syntactic requirement that forces (internal) Merge
of a wh-phrase with C:
(55) Wh-movement
CP
wh C
C TP
. . . wh . . .
Chomsky (2008) formalizes this requirement in terms of an Edge feature in C (a
phase head), which has obvious parallels with the family of postsyntactic non-edge
constraints discussed in this chapter. One point of variation among languages has
to do with the number of wh-phrases that are allowed to move overtly in a wh-
question. In multiple wh-movement languages like Romanian, all wh-phrases move
overtly, while in single wh-movement languages like English, only one wh-phrase
is allowed to surface at the left edge of CP (Rudin 1988; Richards 2001; Bokovic
2002):
(56) Multiple wh-questions in Romanian and English
Cine ce a cumparat?
who what has bought
Who bought what? (Romanian, Bokovic 2002:359)
Following Pesetsky (2000:58), we assume that the difference between these two
types of languages is postsyntactic. Specifically, we claim that all wh-phrases
undergo movement prior to Spellout, but C-Peninitiality, a postsyntactic constraint
on the linear order of C in languages like English, results in nonpronunciation of the
higher copy of all the wh-phrases but one15:
15 Note that C0max is needed (as opposed to simply C) in order to account for cases where other
heads are adjoined to C, as in English subject-auxiliary inversion contexts. As stated, it is not
clear whether C-Peninitiality is satisfied in single wh-questions with a minimally complex wh-
phrase such as which book, which is a DP that embeds an NP (book): both phrasal nodes can be
seen as preceding C. The following more detailed statement of C-Peninitiality correctly predicts
that fronting of a single complex phrasal element does not violate this constraint (we adopt the
standard assumption that dominance is reflexive, but precedence is not):
(i) C-Peninitiality
Let N be the set of nodes in a tree such that all members of N are nonreflexively dominated
by CP and precede C0max . If N is nonempty, there is exactly one member of N that dominates
all members of N.
We assume that this is the correct statement of C-Peninitiality, but stick to the more informal
statement in (57) in the text for ease of exposition.
(57) C-Peninitiality (in single wh-movement languages)

Only one phrasal element may precede C0max within CP.
Under this analysis Romanian (56) and its English translation have the same
syntax: both cine/who and ce/what move to the left edge of CP. The difference
between the two is due to postsyntactic pronunciation of the copies of the wh-chains
(unpronounced copies are indicated with strikethrough)16:
(58) Romanian: all wh-phrases pronounced in head position
[CP cine ce [TP cine . . . ce ]]
(59) English: all wh-phrases but one pronounced in tail position
[CP who what [TP who . . . what ]]
In the Linear Operations component, a general condition that favors pronunciation
of the head of a movement chain results in deletion of the lower copies of all
the wh-phrases in Romanian. On the other hand, C-Peninitiality in English forces
pronunciation of the tail in all wh-phrases but one. In this analysis, both types of
languages have multiple wh-movement, but a postsyntactic constraint forces all
movements but one to be covert in English-like languages.
Support for this analysis of the difference between multiple and single wh-
movement languages comes from restrictions on the pronunciation of certain
wh-chains in Romanian and other multiple wh-movement languages discussed in
Bokovic (2002:364373) and Richards (2010:5054). In questions with nondistinct
wh-phrases, only one of them surfaces overtly in the specifier of CP17 :
(60) Questions with nondistinct wh-phrases in Romanian
a. *Ce ce precede?
what what precedes
b. Ce precede ce?
what precedes what
What precedes what? (Romanian, Bokovic 2002:365)
A postsyntactic condition banning consecutive nondistinct wh-phrases rules out
pronunciation of both wh-phrases in the head position (60a). This is the only context
16 This analysis does not take into account languages where all wh-phrases remain in-situ. These
might be languages where wh-phrases do not actually move, or where they do move, as in English
and Romanian, but constraints on linear order force pronunciation of the lower copy of all wh-
phrases. It might also be the case that both types of in-situ languages are possible. We leave this as
an open aspect of the analysis.
17 Example (60) provides a clear case of nondistinctness, since the two wh-phrases are ho-
mophonous. However, as discussed in Richards (2010:5054), it seems that the type of nondis-
tinctness that is operative in examples of this sort is more abstract, based on identity of certain
morphological features.
that forces pronunciation of all wh-chains but one in the tail position, as illustrated
in (60b). This constraint and repair interaction provides evidence for the analysis
of multiple wh-questions discussed above, where all wh-phrases move prior to
Spellout, but postsyntactic conditions force some of the movements involved to be
covert, even in languages where overt movement is the norm.
The analysis of multiple wh-movement based on C-Peninitiality provides a
precedent for our claim that this type of constraint is responsible for certain
morpheme order facts in Basque auxiliaries. Specifically, as is the case for C in
English wh-questions, T is always in second position in Basque finite verbs, a
result of the interaction of Noninitiality and Peninitiality constrains imposed on this
morpheme (Sects. 5.45.7).
5.2.6 Morpheme-Specific Ordering Constraints in Athapaskan
Although general syntactic and Linearization principles are responsible for the
bulk of morpheme order in a language, they sometimes underdetermine the order
among certain morphemes in a word. In these cases, morpheme-specific ordering
constraints are necessary. We illustrate this point here with morpheme ordering in
Athapaskan verbs.
Athapaskan languages have very complex verbal morphology, and a significant
part of research on this language family is dedicated to describing the order of the
multiple morphemes that can surface in verbs (Rice 2000 and references cited there).
In Rices (2000) thorough study of this complex phenomenon, it is shown that this
order largely derives from syntactic and semantic principles, in striking confirmation
of Bakers (1985) Mirror Principle, a generalization to the effect that the order
of morphemes in a word is a direct consequence of their syntactic derivation.
For instance, Athapaskan languages have fairly complex aspectual systems, which
Rice (2000:246323) analyzes in terms of situation and viewpoint aspect (Smith
1991). The former identifies a situation as a state or event (and may further specify
an event as an activity, accomplishment, etc), and the latter provides a temporal
perspective that focuses on all or part of the situation (this includes categories such
as perfective and imperfective). These two types of aspect interact syntactically (and
semantically), with situation aspect always taking scope under viewpoint aspect
(Rice 2000:281283). In the specific case of Athapaskan, this predicts that situation
aspect precedes viewpoint aspect, since more generally in these languages, elements
with lower scope precede elements with higher scope. This prediction is borne out,
as illustrated in the following example18:
18 The examples are all parsed and glossed according to the grammatical categories defined in Rice
(2000), whose orthographic conventions we also adopt, except in cases where the example is not
found in that book. Note that the stem in the examples below follows most affixes in the verbal
word, in apparent violation of the Mirror Principle. See Rice (2000:7478) and references cited
there for discussion.
(61) Athapaskan: situation aspect precedes viewpoint aspect

y -i -
ACT - PRF -eat
ate (3Sg) (Slave, Rice 2000:257)
Situation aspect y- (activity) precedes perfective i- (viewpoint aspect), as predicted.
Although Mirror Principle effects are at the heart of the Distributed Morphology
approach adopted in this book, we wish to concentrate here on a related important
point made in Rice (2000): in cases where syntactic or semantic conditions do
not determine the order of morphemes (because the morphemes do not interact
syntactically or semantically), one finds variation in this order across Athapaskan.
A specific case discussed in Rice (2000:119120) is the order between the dis-
tributive morpheme and what are called incorporates (incorporated stems; see Rice
(2000:4171)). Rice argues that these two classes of morphemes do not interact,
that is, they do not bear scope with respect to each other. As predicted, their order is
subject to variation. In Koyukon, it is free:
(62) Free order of distributive and incorporate in Koyukon
a. qanaa -na -asi -tliyh
word -DIST -SBJ.1.SG -stem
b. na -qanaa -asi -tliyh
DIST -word - SBJ .1. SG -stem
I stammer. (Koyukon, Thompson 1977:59, Rice 2000:119)
Importantly, in all other Athapaskan languages, their order is fixed. In some, the
distributive precedes the incorporate, while in others this order is reversed:
(63) Distributive-incorporate order in Ahtna
qa -n -a -x -d -gh -i -gh -n
PV - DIST -leaf - THM - INDEF - SBJ .3. PL - TRNS - ACT - PRF
-deeq -n (>qanaxdghighideeq)
-stem -PRF
Leaves sprouted up. (Ahtna, Kari 1989:442)
(64) Incorporate-distributive order in Beaver
je -na -gwt -n -gh@ -s -t -o
PV - ITE -knee - DIST - SBJ . PL - PRF - MDL -handle
They bumped their knees again.
(Beaver, Randoja 1990:134, Rice 2000:116)
This entails that these languages have morpheme-specific constraints on the order
of these morphemes. In languages like Ahtna (63), the constraint states that the
distributive precedes incorporates, and in languages like Beaver (64), it states
that incorporates precede the distributive. Such phenomena are compatible with a
division of labor in which these pairwise ordering statements are postsyntactic and
langauge-specific, following more general syntactic word-formation processes.
5.3 The Linearization of Plural Clitics 263
In summary, morpheme-specific constraints on linear order are necessary even

in highly complex morphological systems where morpheme order largely depends
on syntactic principles. As expected, this situation arises in specific cases where
the syntax and general Linearization principles defined in syntactic terms do not
predict any particular order. In Basque verbal morphology, a constraint of this type
is needed in order to linearize clitics resulting from Plural Fission, an operation in
which headedness-based Linearization delivers no specific result, as discussed at
length in Sects. 5.3 and 5.4 below.
5.2.7 Interim Conclusion
The phenomena studied in this section collectively provide support for the view
that the postsyntactic component (in conjunction with syntactic principles) plays an
important part in establishing the linear order of morphemes. Several processes that
include epenthesis as well as Metathesis and Doubling (formalized as instances of
Generalized Reduplication) effect changes in this linear order, often in response to
requirements imposed by inviolable constraints. In the following sections, all of the
basic postsyntactic phenomena and tools uncovered in the languages discussed here
are combined in our analysis of morpheme displacement and related phenomena in
Basque verbal morphology.
5.3 The Linearization of Plural Clitics
As we saw in Sect. 3.3.4 in Chap. 3, second and third person ([author]) clitics
undergo Plural Fission, which results in two sister terminal nodes: one fully
specified for person, and another one specified for plural number. The latter is
always realized as -e in most Biscayan dialects. Certain aspects of the placement
of the plural clitic are quite uniform across Basque dialects, while others are subject
to a great deal of variation. We argue that this complex set of facts is best captured
by an analysis based on two hypotheses. First, Generalized Reduplication (both
Metathesis and Doubling) can apply in the Linear Operations component prior
to Vocabulary Insertion. Second, following ideas about phonological processes in
Calabrese (2005), we argue that the attested variation is due to the interaction of both
constraints and rules. As discussed in Sect. 5.1 above, these constraints are not vio-
lable, and can be of two types: triggering constraints result in application of repair
rules, and blocking constraints prevent the application of rules with certain outputs.
This section is organized as follows. We begin in Sect. 5.3.1 with linear order
patterns concerning plural clitics that hold quite consistently across dialects,
and which motivate two constraints on Linearization, as well as a rule of Local
Plural Metathesis that affects the plural absolutive clitic in all dialects. We
examine dialectal variation in the placement of plural -e in Sects. 5.3.2 and 5.3.3.
The dialect-particular phenomena examined in these two subsections provide evi-

dence for several claims made in this chapter. First, as predicted by the Generalized
Reduplication formalism adopted here, Biscayan dialects display variation between
Metathesis and Doubling (similar to the variation found in Spanish imperatives and
discussed in Sect. 5.2.1). Second, the claim that linear operations can apply prior to
Vocabulary Insertion correctly predicts that these operations can affect allomorph
selection, a prediction that was already illustrated with Old Irish data in Sect. 5.2.2.
We conclude in Sect. 5.3.4 with comparison of the Linearization of plural enclitic
-e and other number-related morphemes in Basque finite verbs.
5.3.1 Absolutive Clitics and Local Plural Metathesis
Plural Fission results in the following structure, repeated from Sect. 3.3.4 in Chap. 3:
(65) Plural Fission:

D
author
D D
author singular
singular

participant participant participant

peripheral peripheral peripheral
motion motion motion
As might be expected, the two sister clitics that are the output of Fission typically
surface adjacent to each other:
(66) Plural Fission in ergative clitic
Ikus-i n -a -su -e -n.
see-PRF CL.A.1.SG -PST.1.SG -CL.E.2 -CL.E.PL -CPST
You(Pl) saw me. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:126)
(67) Plural Fission in dative clitic
Eur-ai ardau-0/ gusta-ten g -a -ko -e.
them-DAT.PL wine-ABS.SG like-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.D.3 -CL.D.PL
They like wine. (Ondarru)
Furthermore, the person clitic always precedes the plural clitic, as illustrated in
the two examples above. Consider this fact in light of the Linearization algorithm
proposed in Chap. 2:
(68) 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.
In the output of Fission (65), the two terminal nodes share most features, including
the categorial feature D. Thus, neither is the head of the structure, which entails
that it does not fall under either rule in (68). As in the Athapaskan case discussed
in Sect. 5.2.6, this calls for a morpheme-specific statement on the Linearization of
these morphemes. We propose that (68) allows ordering of the two fissioned sister
nodes in either way, but that the following blocking constraint ensures that only one
order actually surfaces19 :
(69) Person-Number Order
Given two clitics Cl1 and Cl2 such that Cl1 and Cl2 have the same case
features and Cl2 is [singular], Cl1 must precede Cl2 .
We assume that the Linearization algorithm (68) is constrained by Person-Number
Order, which ensures that the only grammatical output is one where the person clitic
precedes the number clitic. As shown below and in Sect. 5.4, this constraint is also
obeyed by all rules altering the order of morphemes in the Basque auxiliary in the
Linear Operations module.
Although the fissioned nodes represented in (65) are typically adjacent in dative
and ergative clitics, this is never the case with absolutive clitics:
(70) Plural Fission in absolutive clitic

a. Bixitze bi ego-n s -intz -e -n (>sintzien)
life two be-PRF CL.A.2 -PST.2.PL -CL.A.PL -CPST
suo-k.
you(Pl)-ABS
You(Pl) were there for a very long time.
b. Ni-k seu-ek ikus-i
I-ERG you(Pl)-ABS see-PRF
s -aitu -e -t. (>satxuet)
CL. A .2 - PRS .2. PL - CL. A . PL - CL . E .1. SG
Ive seen you(Pl). (Ondarru)
The person clitic is linearized as a proclitic to the left of T (the root), but the plural
clitic always surfaces as an enclitic to the right of T. We propose the following
Metathesis rule to account for this fact:
19 The observation that person precedes number in fissioned morphemes is not unique to Basque
(Trommer 2008; Harbour 2008a, and references cited there). It is thus possible that (69) follows
from universal principles, a matter that we leave for future research. Both Trommers and Harbours
proposals are based on conceptions of Fission that are different from ours (Sect. 3.3.4 in Chap. 3),
and it is not clear to us to what extent their results are compatible with several claims supported in
this book.
(71) Local Plural Metathesis

a. Structural description: [T0max ClAbs ClPl T
(i) Insert to the immediate left of ClPl , and to the immediate
right of T.
(ii) Insert to the immediate left of T.
This rule applies in the Linear Operations component, and is stated in terms of
the Generalized Reduplication formalism proposed in Harris and Halle (2005) (see
Sect. 5.2 above). It has the following effect on an auxiliary with a plural morpheme
fissioned from an absolutive clitic20 :
(72) ClAbs ClPl T
ClAbs ClPl T
ClAbs ClPl T ClPl T
ClAbs T ClPl
As a result, the plural clitic -e in (70) surfaces to the right of the root -intz/aitu-,
while the person clitic s- remains to its left.
The generalization that plural absolutive -e follows the root is exceptionless
across Basque dialects. We propose that Local Plural Metathesis is in fact triggered
by the following pandialectal constraint, with obvious parallels with the analysis of
crosslinguistic variation in wh-movement discussed in Sect. 5.2.5 above:
(73) T-Peninitiality
Only one morpheme may precede terminal T within T0max .
This constraint prevents T from being more than a single morpheme away from the
left edge of a certain domain. This domain is defined in (73) as the maximal 0-level
projection of T. Evidence that this is the relevant domain is provided in Sect. 5.7
below, but for the purposes of this section and the next, it is equivalent to a domain
that contains the whole auxiliary word. We thus informally refer to T-Peninitiality
here as requiring that at most one morpheme precede T within the auxiliary word.
T-Peninitiality triggers Local Plural Metathesis in auxiliaries with fissioned
absolutive clitics, since the latter are complex nodes containing two morphemes
preceding T. Thus, the constraint ensures that Local Plural Metathesis (or some
other rule to the same effect) applies in all Basque varieties. Further evidence for this
constraint is provided below, where it is argued that it also plays a role in blocking
certain rules.
A related generalization is the fact that in no Basque dialect is T-Peninitiality
satisfied by displacing an absolutive person clitic with T. That is, no dialect has a
version of (71) that has the following effect:
20 The dashes in (72) and other examples below are present only to help the reader identify the
copied sequence, and do not necessarily represent any relevant morphological boundary.
(74) Unattested absolutive metathesis

ClAbs ClPl T
ClAbs ClPl T
ClAbs ClPl T ClAbs ClPl T
ClPl T ClAbs
Although this rule would satisfy T-Peninitiality with a simple modification of Local
Plural Metathesis, the output is blocked by Person-Number Order (69).
5.3.2 Long-Distance Plural Metathesis and Doubling
Further support for this approach to the linearization of plural enclitic -e comes
from dialectal variation in its placement. In many Biscayan varieties, the plural
clitic surfaces further to the right than expected, even in cases where it is fissioned
from a dative or ergative clitic. In most of these, the phenomenon is limited to
a few idiosyncratic forms (see below on Lekeitio), but it is quite productive in
the Biscayan subvariety of Western Bermeo. We examine here the placement of
plural -e in two towns in this area: Ibarrangelu and Kortezubi. As in other dialects, T-
Peninitiality triggers application of Local Plural Metathesis, but other rules displace
plural clitics (in all cases) further to the right in both Ibarrangelu and Kortezubi.
These rules, which are not repairs to T-Peninitiality, provide independent support
for the existence of Generalized Reduplication rules in Basque affecting this clitic.
In addition, they illustrate the prediction made by this formalism that there should
be variation between Metathesis and Doubling.
In Ibarrangelu, plural enclitic -e systematically surfaces to the immediate right
of complementizer agreement (-s), regardless of its case:
(75) Plural Metathesis in Ibarrangelu (Gaminde 1984:Vol. 3, 313315)
a. s -aitu -t -e (>saitxute)
CL. A .2 - PRS .2. PL - CL . E .1. SG - CL. A . PL
b. d -o -su -s -e
L - PRS .3. PL - CL. E.2 -3. PL - CL. E. PL
c. dx -a -tzu -s -e -n (>dxatzusien)
L - PST.3. PL - CL. D.2 -3. PL - CL. D. PL - CPST
d. d -o -tzu -t -s -e (>dotzutese)
L - PST.3. PL - CL. D.2 - CL . E .1. SG -3. PL - CL. D. PL
As can be seen in (75a), plural -e fissioned from the absolutive surfaces further to the
right than expected of the output of Local Plural Metathesis (71) (cf. Ondarru satxuet
in (70b)). A separate rule that metathesizes it further to the right is needed. Examples
(75b)(75d) show that in fact this second rule is not limited to the absolutive clitic;
it applies to all instances of the fissioned plural clitic, which surface to the right of
complementizer agreement. Thus, Ibarrangelu has a rule of Long-Distance Plural

Metathesis in addition to Local Plural Metathesis:
(76) Long-Distance Plural Metathesis (Ibarrangelu)
a. Structural description: Cl X ClPl Y CAgr where Cl and ClPl have the
same case features.
right of CAgr.
(ii) Insert to the immediate left of Y .
Given the formalism, the rule has the following effect on an auxiliary with a plural
clitic:
(77) Cl X ClPl Y CAgr
Cl X ClPl Y CAgr
Cl X ClPl Y CAgr ClPl Y CAgr
Cl X Y CAgr ClPl
The result is that plural -e always surfaces right-adjacent to complementizer
agreement (-s), away from the clitic from which it is fissioned.
In the case of absolutive plural (75a), both Local Plural Metathesis and Long-
Distance Plural Metathesis apply, in that order:
Loc Pl Metathesis
(78) ClAbs ClPl T ClErg CAgr
ClAbs ClPl T ClErg CAgr
ClAbs ClPl T ClPl T ClErg CAgr
LD Pl Metathesis
ClAbs T ClPl ClErg CAgr
ClAbs T ClPl ClErg CAgr
ClAbs T ClPl ClErg CAgr ClPl ClErg CAgr
ClAbs T ClErg CAgr ClPl
As illustrated in (75a), the result is that -e surfaces to the right of complementizer
agreement.21
Implicit above is the assumption that Local Plural Metathesis precedes Long-
Distance Plural Metathesis. We propose that this is due to a condition on rule
application that is reminiscent of Minimalist conditions on movement such as
Shortest Move. Intuitively, when two Generalized Reduplication rules can apply
to the same linear sequence, the one that entails the shortest displacement of a mor-
pheme applies first (though not necessarily disjunctively). Local Plural Metathesis
displaces the plural clitic to the right of T, and Long-Distance Plural Metathesis
displaces it to the right of complementizer agreement, so the former involves a
21 Notethat the complementizer agreement exponent -s does not surface overtly in this form. As
discussed in Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 2, this exponent has a somewhat irregular distribution.
shorter displacement and has a chance to apply first. This can be implemented as
follows. Consider the effect of applying these two rules to an auxiliary where both
rules could in principle apply (i.e. the topmost sequence in (78)):
(79) Competition between Local Plural Metathesis and Long-Distance Plural
Metathesis
a. Local Plural Metathesis (71)
ClAbs ClPl T ClErg CAgr ClAbs ClPl T ClErg CAgr
b. Long-Distance Plural Metathesis (76)
ClAbs ClPl T ClErg CAgr ClAbs ClPl T ClErg CAgr
In both outputs, the material between square brackets indicates what linear sequence
is to be copied (before deletion). In Local Plural Metathesis, this includes only the
plural clitic and T, but in Long-Distance Plural Metathesis, it also includes the
ergative clitic and complementizer agreement. This correlates with the intuitive
idea stated above: the length of the string to be copied determines how far the
displaced clitic is from its in-situ copy. We can derive the application of Local
Plural Metathesis before Long-Distance Plural Metathesis by adopting the following
general condition on the application of Generalized Reduplication rules:
(80) Minimal Distance
Given two Generalized Reduplication rules R1 and R2 and a linear sequence
S such that
a. both R1 and R2 can apply to S,
b. the output of applying R1 to S copies subsequence S1 of S,
c. the output of applying R2 to S copies subsequence S2 of S, and
d. S1 is a subsequence of S2 ,
apply R1 to S.
Essentially, this condition forces the minimization of material to be copied in
cases where there is an option. Since Local Plural Metathesis copies less material
than Long-Distance Plural Metathesis (thus displacing the plural clitic a shorter
distance), the former rule applies first, displacing the plural clitic to the right of T.
The output, as shown in (78), only meets the structural description of Long-Distance
Plural Metathesis, which then has a chance to apply, displacing the plural clitic to
the right of complementizer agreement.
As illustrated with Spanish imperatives in Sect. 5.2.1 above, the Generalized
Reduplication formalism assumed here leads us to expect dialectal variants where
plural clitics undergo Doubling instead of Metathesis: a simple change in the
statement of a rule can have one or the other effect. This is precisely what is
observed in variation in the placement of the plural clitic between Ibarrangelu and
Kortezubi. Whereas Ibarrangelu systematically displaces plural -e to the right edge
of the auxiliary, Kortezubi doubles it in that position. That is, a plural clitic surfaces
with two copies: one in the same position as in other varieties, and the other one
right-adjacent to complementizer agreement.
(81) Plural Doubling in Kortezubi (Gaminde 1984:Vol. 3, 283285)

a. s -aitu -e -t -e (>saitxuete)
CL. A .2 - PRS .2. PL - CL. A . PL - CL . E .1. SG - CL. A . PL
b. d -o -su -e -s -e
L - PRS .3. PL - CL. E.3 - CL. E. PL -3. PL - CL. E. PL
c. d -a -tzu -e -s -e -n
L - PST.3. PL - CL. D.2 - CL. D. PL -3. PL - CL. D. PL - CPST
d. d -o -tzu -e -t -s -e (>dotzuetese)
L - PST.3. PL - CL. D.2 - CL. D. PL - CL . E .1. SG -3. PL - CL. D. PL
Note in particular the contrast with Ibarrangelu. As in the latter dialect, a copy of
-e appears closer to the right edge of the auxiliary than expected. However, unlike
Ibarrangelu, another copy of -e surfaces in its expected position.
Doubling in this dialect is due to the following rule, which differs minimally
from Long-Distance Plural Metathesis in Ibarrangelu (76):
(82) Long-Distance Plural Doubling (Kortezubi)
a. Structural description: Cl X ClPl Y CAgr where Cl and ClPl have the
same case features.
right of CAgr.
(ii) Insert to the immediate left of Y .
The result of this operation is that two copies of plural -e surface:
(83) Cl X ClPl Y CAgr
Cl X ClPl Y CAgr
Cl X ClPl Y CAgr ClPl Y CAgr
Cl X ClPl Y CAgr ClPl
In a way similar to Ibarrangelu, absolutive plural clitics are affected by two rules:
Local Plural Metathesis (71), followed by Long-Distance Plural Doubling (82). As
illustrated in (81a), the result is two surface copies of -e: one in its typical position
to the right of T, and another one closer to the right edge of the auxiliary.
The presence of Plural Doubling in Kortezubi (and additional Basque varieties
not discussed here) provides a strong argument for our adoption of the Generalized
Reduplication formalism to account for the placement of plural -e. The formalism
leads us to expect dialects that effect Doubling instead of Metathesis, which is
precisely the case in Kortezubi. The contrast between Ibarrangelu and Kortezubi is
especially informative, as it provides a striking illustration of the effect of a minimal
change in the structural change of a Generalized Reduplication rule.
Our analysis of the placement of the plural clitic as the result of the interaction
between constraints and rules in the Linear Operations component makes other
predictions about possible variation across Basque dialects. While Metathesis of
a plural absolutive clitic applies quite generally in all dialects of Basque, Doubling
of this particular clitic is unattested:
(84) Unattested placement of absolutive -e (cf. s-aitu-e-t (70b), s-aitu-t-e (75a),
s-aitu-e-t-e (81a))
a. *s -e -aitu -e -t
CL . A .2 - CL. A . PL - PRS .2. PL - CL. A . PL - CL . E .1. SG
b. *s -e -aitu -t -e
CL . A .2 - CL. A . PL - PRS .2. PL - CL . E .1. SG - CL. A . PL
One might expect, for instance, that (84a) could be derived by a doubling version of
Local Plural Metathesis (71):
(85) Unattested Plural Absolutive Doubling
a. Structural description: [T0max ClAbs ClPl T
right of T.
(ii) Insert to the immediate left of T.
Our analysis derives the absence of such a process: application of (85) is blocked
by T-Peninitiality (73), since the output would have two morphemes before T. Our
analysis therefore predicts that an in-situ plural absolutive clitic can only be affected
by Metathesis, never Doubling. In fact, this entails that T-Peninitiality is both a
triggering and a blocking constraint: as the former, it ensures that all dialects have a
repair rule that displaces the plural clitic to the right, and as the latter, it ensures that
this is never the result of Doubling.
A further prediction of the analysis is that, while displacement of the plural
clitic to the right is possible, displacement to the left is not. A rule effecting the
latter change would be blocked by Person-Number Order (69), since it would result
in the plural clitic preceding its associated person clitic. Compare, for instance,
Ibarrangelu d-o-su-s-e (75b) with its unattested variant in (86)22:
(86) Unattested displacement of -e to the left
*d -o -e -su -s
L - PRS .3. PL - CL. E. PL - CL. E.2 -3. PL
While our approach based on dialect-specific rules accounts for the attested
variation, our adoption of general constraints that govern the applications of these
rules explains the attested limits of this variation, as evinced by the absence of
patterns such as (84) and (86).
22 Further confirmation of this prediction is provided in Sect. 5.4.1 below.

5.3.3 Other Linear Operations Affecting Plural Clitics
One last prediction of the foregoing analysis has to do with the interaction between
the surface placement of -e and allomorphy. Since constraints and rules applying in
the Linear Operations module precede Vocabulary Insertion, we predict that plural
Metathesis rules can feed conditions on contextual allomorphy, in a way similar to
the Old Irish metathetic rules discussed in Sect. 5.2.2 above. This prediction can be
tested in Lekeitio, which has the following Metathesis rule:
(87) Dative Plural Clitic Metathesis (Lekeitio)
a. Structural description: Cl3rd ClPl ClErg
right of ClErg .
(ii) Insert to the immediate left of ClErg .
This rule metathesizes a plural clitic fissioned from a third person dative to the right
of an ergative clitic. It is illustrated in the following auxiliary form:
(88) d -o -tz -t -e -s (>dotzates) (Lekeitio)
L - PRS .3. PL - CL. D.3 - CL. E.1. SG - CL. D. PL -3. PL
Compare this auxiliary with a minimally distinct form where Dative Plural Clitic
Metathesis does not apply because the dative clitic is second person instead of third:
(89) d -o -tzu -e -da -s (>dotzueras) (Lekeitio)
L - PRS .3. PL - CL. D.2 - CL. D. PL - CL. E.1. SG -3. PL
As illustrated in these examples, allomorphy of the first singular ergative clitic

correlates with the placement of dative plural -e: the former is -t when preceding
-e (88), but -da when following it (89). This follows from the hypothesis that
Metathesis rules affecting the placement of the plural clitic apply prior to Vocabulary
Insertion. As shown in Sect. 3.3.2 in Chap. 3, this allomorphy in first singular
enclitics is based on the following restrictions imposed on their exponents:
(90) Vocabulary entries for first singular dative and ergative (Lekeitio)
a. da [+motion, +author, +singular]/ [+M]
b. t [+motion, +author, +singular]
That is, a first singular enclitic is -da when immediately preceding a complementizer
agreement morpheme specified as [+M] (which is realized as -s in (88) and (89); see
Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 2). Elsewhere, it is realized as -t. The former case is illustrated in
(89): since ergative clitics typically immediately precede complementizer agreement
(-s in (89)), the first singular ergative clitic surfaces as -da. However, Dative Plural
Clitic Metathesis places the plural morpheme in (88) to the immediate right of the
ergative clitic, thus blocking insertion of -da. As a result, it surfaces as -t. This
entails that Metathesis precedes Vocabulary Insertion:
(91) Metathesis and Vocabulary Insertion in (88)

Plural Metathesis
L T Cl3rd ClPl ClErg CAgr
VI
L T Cl3rd ClErg ClPl CAgr
d-o-tz-t-e-s
If Metathesis applied after Vocabulary Insertion, it would not have an effect on
allomorphy, contrary to fact:
VI
(92) L T Cl3rd ClPl ClErg CAgr
Plural Metathesis
d-o-tz-e-da-s
d-o-tz-da-e-s (>dotzares)
This specific type of interaction between allomorphy and Plural Metathesis provides
an argument that the latter precedes Vocabulary Insertion, and is initial evidence for
our extension of the Generalized Reduplication formalism to rules in the Linear
Operations component. Further evidence for this claim is provided in Sect. 5.4.
Apart from Local Plural Metathesis, Ondarru and Zamudio have no other rules
affecting the placement of the plural clitic. Lekeitio, on the other hand, has two very
specific rules: Dative Plural Clitic Metathesis (discussed above), and the following
one affecting third plural ergative:
(93) Ergative Plural Clitic Metathesis (Lekeitio)
a. Structural description: T Cl ClPl CAgr,
where Cl is third person ergative, and T is past tense and first plural.
right of CAgr.
(ii) Insert to the immediate left of CAgr.
This is illustrated in a single form in this dialect:
(94) g -aitu -/0/ -s -e -n (Lekeitio)
CL . A .1. PL - PST.1. PL - CL. E.3 -1.PL -CL.E.PL -CPST
(>gaitxusen)
The rule displaces the plural clitic fissioned from a third ergative to the right of
complementizer agreement in the very specific context of past tense first plural T. In
all other contexts, third plural ergative -e precedes complementizer agreement (see
Tables A.3A.8 in Appendix A).
5.3.4 Summary: Plural Morphemes and Linearization
To conclude, the facts of the surface position of -e in Basque provide several

arguments for the analysis proposed here and for the theory underlying it. The claim
that the Linear Operations component (which includes Metathesis) applies before
Vocabulary Insertion accounts for the attested interaction between the placement
of -e and contextual allomorphy. Furthermore, dialectal variation between Plural
Metathesis and Doubling is expected given the Generalized Reduplication formal-
ism adopted here. Finally, our model of the Linear Operations component based on
(triggering and blocking) constraints as well as rules makes the correct predictions
concerning attested and unattested variation in the placement of plural -e.
Variation in the plracement of plural -e in this section provides evidence for our
approach to its placement in terms of processes applying in the Linear Operations
component. More specifically, the fact that this exponent is adjacent to the clitic
it is fissioned from in some dialects, but further to the right in others strongly
suggests a unified approach where in the latter dialects it is subject to displacement.
Furthermore, variation between Metathesis and Doubling is expected in an analysis
that incorporates the Generalized Reduplication formalism. It is useful to compare
these properties of placement of the plural clitic exponent -e with the behavior
of plural -s, which in our analysis is the realization of complementizer agreement
(Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 2). In Sect. 3.3.6 in Chap. 3, we discussed evidence against an
alternative account of this exponent in which it is related to the root T (not C), but
displaced to the right edge of the auxiliary by Metathesis. Comparison with clitic -e
provides further argumentation against this analysis. Unlike clitic -e, the placement
of plural agreement -s in Biscayan is not subject to any variation: it systematically
surfaces left-adjacent to C (except in cases where a plural clitic is displaced to
a position between the two, as shown for Lekeitio at the end of the preceding
subsection), and there is no variety that displays Doubling of this exponent (one
adjacent to T and another to C). This is expected only in an analysis where -s
surfaces at the right edge of the auxiliary as a consequence of its linearization as
sister of C, rather than as the result of Metathesis.
5.4 Ergative Metathesis and Related Phenomena in Basque

Finite Auxiliaries
Ergative Metathesis is one of the best-studied phenomena in Basque verbal mor-

phology (de Azkue 1925:556557; Heath 1976:208; Bossong 1984; Ortiz de Urbina
1989:1015; Bonet 1991:226229; Laka 1993a; Fernndez 1997; Albizu and
Eguren 2000; Fernndez and Albizu 2000; Albizu 2002; Hualde 2002; Rezac 2003,
2006). Since Laka (1993a), it is usually referred to as Ergative Displacement. Our
choice of terminology reflects our analysis: like other postsyntactic movement-like
operations discussed in this chapter, it applies in the Linear Operations module
by altering the linear order of certain morphemes, and is formalized with the
Generalized Reduplication formalism from Harris and Halle (2005) adopted in this
book. In the case of this particular process, it is triggered by the need to satisfy
T-Noninitiality, a second position requirement on T, which can also be satisfied
5.4 Ergative Metathesis and Related Phenomena in Basque Finite Auxiliaries 275
by other processes, such as insertion of an epenthetic morpheme (L-Support). Our

account thus belongs to a family of morphological analyses of the phenomenon in
which, in the absence of an absolutive clitic in auxiliary-initial position, an ergative
clitic is recruited to fulfill a requirement that this initial position be filled (de Azkue
1925; Bossong 1984; Laka 1993a; Albizu and Eguren 2000), and can be seen as a
specific implementation of this hypothesis within a general theory of postsyntactic
morpheme displacement.
Several aspects of the phenomenon provide evidence for our analysis and for
the general view of the postsyntactic component adopted in this book. First,
Ergative Metathesis has no effect on agreement, and it feeds allomorphy of both
the metathesized clitic and T. Both of these properties follow from our hypothesis
that the operation applies in the Linear Operations module, that is, after agreement-
related operations such as Agree-Copy and Complementizer Agreement, but before
Vocabulary Insertion (which effects allomorphy). This derivational organization
of the postsyntactic component thus receives strong support from the principled
account it affords for these properties of Ergative Metathesis. Second, some varieties
effect Ergative Doubling instead of Metathesis in some contexts, as predicted by
the formalism adopted here. This provides evidence for our extension of Harris and
Halles formalism to rules that apply in the Linear Operations module. Third, several
processes, including absolutive cliticization, Ergative Metathesis and Doubling, and
insertion of an epenthetic morpheme, conspire to make T surface in second position.
Furthermore, the exact distribution of these processes is subject to a great deal of
variation. Following parallel argumentation in Calabrese (2005), we argue that this
complex set of data is best handled in terms of a general constraint (T-Noninitiality)
that accounts for the cross-dialectal surface generalization, coupled with specific
repair rules that are the source of variation.
This section is organized as follows. Section 5.4.1 discusses T-Noninitiality and
Ergative Metathesis. Two other postsyntactic repairs triggered by the constraint are
discussed in Sect. 5.4.2 (Ergative Doubling) and 5.4.3 (L-Support). Section 5.4.4
provides arguments that third person clitics undergo Ergative Metathesisa matter
of some contention in the literaturewhich plays an important role in our discussion
of other analyses of Ergative Metathesis in Sect. 5.5. The section concludes in
5.4.5 with a general summary of our view of Ergative Metathesis as one of several
possible repairs triggered by T-Noninitiality.
5.4.1 Noninitiality and Ergative Metathesis
In Basque, T fills the second position in finite auxiliaries. This is reflected in our
descriptive template for this category, repeated here:
Comp
This template also makes explicit the fact that T is typically preceded by an
absolutive clitic filling the first position in the auxiliary. However, the generalization
that T fills the second position goes beyond the cases covered by such a template,
as shown below. We argue that this generalization follows from T-Noninitiality, a
constraint on the linear order of T within the auxiliary:
(96) T-Noninitiality
The terminal T cannot be leftmost within T0max .
This constraint has many parallels in the second-position phenomena discussed in
Sect. 5.2 above, especially in Lithuanian (Sect. 5.2.3), where a similar Noninitiality
constraint also has as its domain the maximal 0-level projection of the affected
terminal node. In Basque, (96) prevents T from occurring leftmost in a finite verb. In
this subsection, we discuss the consequences of adopting this condition on the order
of morphemes in the auxiliary, concentrating on the effects of Ergative Metathesis,
an operation triggred by this constraint.
Before we start the discussion of T-Noninitiality and Ergative Metathesis, we
would like to note an exception to the template in (95): in the context of auxiliary-
initial modal particles, T surfaces in third position. Section 5.7.3 below argues
these phenomena do not constitute an exception in our analysis, and in fact
justify the adoption of T0max (as opposed to the M-word) as the domain relevant
for T-Noninitiality. For instance, auxiliaries with an absolutive clitic but without
modal particles have the following structure after Linearization (ignoring any other
adjoined clitic):
(97) Linearized structure of auxiliaries without modal particles
C
T C
ClAbs T Agr C
On the other hand, the addition of a modal particle results in the following structure
(see Sect. 5.7.3):
(98) Linearized structure of auxiliaries with modal particles
C
Mod C
Mod T Agr C
ClAbs T
Thus, in auxiliaries without modal particles, T surfaces in second position, but in the
presence of a modal particle, it surfaces in third position. However, T-Noninitiality
(96) is crucially stated in terms of the left edge of T0max , not the whole auxiliary M-
word. Within this more restricted domain, T is in second position in both types of
auxiliaries. For ease of exposition, we often refer to T-Noninitiality in this chapter as
resulting in T being in second position in the auxiliary, since most of the discussion
centers on auxiliaries without modal particles. More precise terminology is used in
cases where the distinction between the left edge of T0max and the left edge of the
M-word matters, as in the context of modal particles in Sect. 5.7.3.
As expressed in (95), the morpheme preceding T is typically an absolutive clitic:
(99) Absolutive clitic in first position
a. Ni-k seu-0/ ikus-i
I-ERG you(Sg)-ABS see-PRF
s -aitu -t. (>satxut)
CL. A .2. SG - PRS .2. SG - CL . E .1. SG
I have seen you(Sg). (Ondarru)
b. Ikus-i s -aitu -e -t -n. (>saittueten)
see-PRF CL.A.2 -PST.2.PL -CL.A.PL -CL.E.1.SG -CPST
I saw you(Pl). (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:126)
Such facts are the result of absolutive cliticization to T, which after Linearization
results in the observed order between the clitic and T (Sect. 2.2 in Chap. 2).
However, Basque auxiliaries lack third person clitics in two types of sentences:
those with no absolutive argument (Sect. 2.5 in Chap. 2), and sentences with third
person absolutives, since the latter do not trigger cliticization (Sect. 2.2 in Chap. 2).
One might expect to find T in initial position in the auxiliary in these cases. This,
however, is not what happens, as we show immediately below.
In some of these cases, the first position is filled by an epenthetic L-morpheme:
(100) L-morpheme in first position
Neu-k bakarrik eda-n d -o -t
I-ERG only drink-PRF L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.1.SG
au-0/ ardau-au-0?
/
this-ABS.SG wine-this-ABS.SG
Only I have drunk this wine? (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:57)
This morpheme is inserted by a rule of L-Support, which we analyze in detail in
Sect. 5.4.3 below. Although the third person absolutive argument does not cliticize,
it patterns like other absolutive arguments in triggering agreement in T as well as
in C, in the latter case due to a postsyntactic operation (Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 2). The
presence of absolutive agreement features can be observed most clearly in its effects
Table 5.2 Ergative

Metathesisa First singular First plural Second singular Second plural
n-eu-n g-endu-n s-endu-n s-endu-e-n
a Past
tense auxiliaries with third singular absolutive agreement
and no dative clitic
on complementizer agreement, which surfaces as -s in the context of a third plural

absolutive argument23:
(101) L-Support and third plural absolutive agreement
Neu-k be i-n d -o -t -s. (>dotes)
I-ERG too make-IMP L -PRS.3.PL -CL.E.1.SG -3.PL
Ive made them too. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:197)
The contrast between third absolutive singular dot (100) and plural dotes (101)
shows that agreement is not affected in L-Support contexts.
The other strategy that ensures that T is in second position in the auxiliary is
Ergative Metathesis: in the past tense, an ergative clitic (if present) appears in first
position.
(102) Ergative Metathesis: ergative clitic in first position
Baa seoser-0/ ai-ttu n -eu -n, (>neban)
but something-ABS hear-PRF CL.E.1.SG -PST.3.SG -CPST
e?
huh
But I heard something, huh? (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:220)
In contrast with the auxiliaries in (99)(101), where the ergative clitic follows
T, the ergative clitic in this example is in the first position preceding T. Further
illustration of auxiliary forms with Ergative Metathesis is provided in Table 5.2
(see Tables A.6A.8 in Appendix A for full paradigms). As in L-Support contexts,
Ergative Metathesis does not have an effect on agreement with the absolutive
argument:
(103) Absolutive agreement in Ergative Metathesis contexts
a. Ikus-i g -endu -n. (>genduan)
see-PRF CL.E.1.PL -PST.3.SG -CPST
We saw him. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:126)
b. Ikus-i g -endu -s -n. (>gendusan)
see-PRF CL.E.1.PL -PST.3.PL -3.PL -CPST
We saw them. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:126)
23 Although T also agrees with the third person absolutive argument, number distinctions are often
neutralized in this position due to Impoverishment rules and underspecification of the relevant
vocabulary entries. That is why both third singular and third plural are realized as -o- in the present
tense in (100) and (101). See Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 2, and Sect. 3.4 in Chap. 3.
The contrast between genduan and gendusan is due to the absolutive -features in
complementizer agreement, which again shows that agreement is not affected by the
different strategies used in satisfying the condition that T be in second position in
the auxiliary.
The distribution of Ergative Metathesis is governed by three factors. First, it
restricted to the past tense. In the present tense, T-Noninitiality is satisfied by
L-Support, as in (100) and (101). Second, past tense auxiliaries without an ergative
clitic undergo L-Support, as in the following example:
(104) L-Support in past intransitives

Olan ixe-te s -a -n.
thus be-IMP L -PST.3.SG -CPST
It used to be like that. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:37)
Third, Ergative Metathesis is subject to dialect-particular conditions discussed

below. Our analysis below provides an account of all these distributional properties
of the process.
To summarize so far, T is always in the second position in finite auxiliaries,
but several different types of morphemes occupying the first position make this
generalization true. Furthermore, agreement (in T and C) is not affected by the use
of one or another strategy. As stated above, our analysis of these facts is based on the
Noninitiality condition (96) on T within the auxiliary. In sentences with a nonthird
person absolutive argument, absolutive cliticization in the syntax ensures that
Noninitiality is satisfied. In other cases, one of the two repair strategies introduced
above applies in the Linear Operations component: insertion of epenthetic L
(Sect. 5.4.3 below), or Metathesis of an ergative clitic to first position. Since the
latter two operations manipulate the first position in the auxiliary in the Linear
Operations component, they apply after all operations effecting agreement (Sect. 2.4
in Chap. 2), and are therefore not expected to have an effect on agreement.
We now turn to the details of Ergative Metathesis, which are formulated as
follows:
(105) Ergative Metathesis

a. Structural description: [T0max TPast X ClErg
(i) Condition (Lekeitio/Ondarru/Zamudio): X does not contain a
first person dative clitic.
(ii) Condition (Lekeitio): if X contains a dative clitic, ClErg is not
[+participant].
(i) Insert to the immediate left of T, and to the immediate right
of ClErg .
Given the Generalized Reduplication formalism discussed in Sect. 5.2, (105) has the
following effect on a past tense auxiliary whose only clitic is ergative:
(106) TPast ClErg
TPast ClErg ]
TPast ClErg TPast ClErg
ClErg TPast
That is, in auxiliaries with a past tense T morpheme in word-initial position and
followed by an ergative clitic, the latter is displaced to the initial position, thereby
satisfying T-Noninitiality.
For instance, Ergative Metathesis applies as follows in the auxiliary in (102)
(irrelevant details omitted):
(107) Ergative Metathesis in the auxiliary in (102)

T
+past D

Ergative
participant C Ergative Metathesis

+author
author
+singular
+singular

T
D +past
Ergative

participant
Vocabulary Insertion
C
+author
author
+singular
+singular
n -eu -n
As shown in Sect. 3.3.2 in Chap. 3, Ergative Metathesis results in positional
neutralization. Given our assumptions about Vocabulary Insertion (elaborated in
Sect. 3.2 in Chap. 3), the metathesized first singular ergative clitic surfaces as case
neutral n-, instead of ergative -t (cf. the in-situ ergative clitics in (99)). The fact
that Ergative Metathesis results in this neutralization provides strong evidence that
it precedes Vocabulary Insertion, as first noted in Laka (1993a:6265). Further
evidence for this aspect of this process is discussed below.
In Sect. 5.3 above, we propose certain blocking constraints applying in the Linear
Operations component. These constraints play an important role in the surface
placement of the plural clitic -e. Further evidence for these constraints comes from
their role in blocking certain outputs of Ergative Metathesis. These potential outputs
arise in auxiliaries with second plural clitics (third plural patterns the same way; see
Sect. 5.4.4). As shown in Sect. 3.3.4 in Chap. 3, they are subject to Fission in the
Exponence Conversion module:
(108) Fission in second plural ergative
Sue-k Jon-0/ ikus-te d -o -su -e. (>sue)
you(Pl)-ERG Jon-ABS see-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.2 -CL.E.PL
You(Pl) see Jon. (Ondarru)
In contexts where Ergative Metathesis applies, only the person clitic is fronted:
(109) Plural Fission and Ergative Metathesis in second plural ergative
Sue-k Jon-0/ ikus-te s -endu -e -n.
you(Pl)-ERG Jon-ABS see-IMP CL.E.2 -PST.3.SG -CL.E.PL -CPST
You(Pl) saw Jon. (Ondarru)
Given our formulation in (105), the rule could in fact apply to both morphemes
that are the output of Plural Fission, since both of them are specified as ergative.
However, only the option where the person clitic is metathesized is grammatical.
This is due to the T-Peninitiality constraint proposed in Sect. 5.3 above, repeated
here:
Only one morpheme may precede T within T0max .
In the case of Ergative Metathesis, it forces fronting of a single ergative clitic in
cases of Fission. Furthermore, the fact that it is the person clitic that is displaced
follows from the blocking effect of the Person-Number Order constraint, proposed
in Sect. 5.3 above:
(111) Person-Number Order
Given two clitics Cl1 and Cl2 such that Cl1 and Cl2 have the same case
features and Cl2 is [singular], Cl1 must precede Cl2 .
As shown earlier, this constraint derives the usual person-number order in fissioned
clitics. In the case of Ergative Metathesis to the left, since only one of the clitics
can be displaced, it must apply to the person clitic, in order to preserve the order
imposed by (111).
An important property of Ergative Metathesis that all analyses must take
into account is the fact that it is subject to a great deal of dialectal variation
(Hualde 2003e; Rezac 2006:Chap. 2, 4245). In particular, there are a number of
idiosyncratic and dialect-particular exceptions to the rule. For the three varieties
discussed here, these only occur in ditransitive auxiliaries, and are implemented
as conditions on the variable X in the Structural Description of the rule in (105),
repeated here:
(112) Dialect-particular conditions on Ergative Metathesis
a. Lekeitio, Ondarru and Zamudio: X does not contain a first person
dative clitic.
b. Lekeitio: if X contains a dative clitic, ClErg is not [+participant].
These conditions are illustrated in Table 5.3, where the ergative clitic exponent in
each auxiliary is in bold (See Tables A.7 and A.8 in Appendix A for full paradigms).
In Ondarru and Zamudio, Ergative Metathesis applies in all past tense ditransitive
auxiliaries except in those with a first person dative clitic. This condition also applies
in Lekeitio ditransitives, with the additional restriction that the ergative clitic must
a Zamudio
Table 5.3 Ergative
Metathesis in ditransitivesa Dative
Ergative 1 singular 2 singular 3 singular
1 singular X n-eun-tzu-n n-eun-tz-n
2 singular 0-o-t-su-n
/ X s-eun-tz-n
b Lekeitio
Dative
Ergative 1 singular 2 singular 3 singular
1 singular X n-eu-tzu-n n-eu-tz-n
2 singular 0-eu-t-su-n
/ X 0-eu-tz-su-n
/
a Third singular absolutive forms
be first singular or third person.24 In auxiliaries where Ergative Metathesis does not
apply, T-Noninitiality is satisfied by L-Support (Sect. 5.4.3 below).
This variation in the application of Ergative Metathesis provides an important
insight as to the proper treatment of this phenomenon. Although T-Noninitiality is a
general constraint on auxiliaries in all Basque dialects, its satisfaction is subject to
a great deal of dialectal variation. Apart from the variation in structural description
discussed above, there is also variation due to the application of other repairs such
as Ergative Doubling and L-Support. As argued by Calabrese (2005:252, 117121)
for similar patterns in phonology, this calls for an analysis in terms of both a general
constraint and a set of repair rules that can implement this variation. An analysis
with only rules would miss the surface generalization that no auxiliary begins with
T, while an account relying only on a general constraint founders in accounting
for the idiosyncratic variation found in implementing the constraint. This aspect of
Ergative Metathesis and related processes plays an important role in our review of
previous accounts of the phenomenon in Sect. 5.5.
Although the exceptions discussed above are idiosyncratic, their effect on the
surface form of auxiliaries provides further evidence for the hypothesis that Ergative
Metathesis applies before Vocabulary Insertion. In particular, the exponent realizing
T is in some cases sensitive to the presence of a left-adjacent ergative clitic. This is
particularly visible in the Zamudio auxiliaries in Table 5.3a. The relevant vocabulary
entries in this dialect are the following (see Sect. 3.4.3 in Chap. 3):
(113) Zamudio: vocabulary entry for past ditransitive T
eun [+have, +past, participant, author]/[Ergative] [Dative]
(114) Zamudio: default vocabulary entry for transitive T
o [+have]
24 Note that first singular clitics are not specified as [+participant], due to First Singular Clitic
Impoverishment (Sect. 3.4 in Chap. 3).

In the auxiliaries in Table 5.3a where Metathesis applies, the ergative clitic precedes
T and thus conditions insertion of the exponent -eun- (113) in the latter. On the other
hand, the ergative clitic is not left-adjacent to T in auxiliaries without Metathesis,
which results in insertion of default -o- (114).
To summarize, our analysis of Ergative Metathesis derives all the central
properties of this phenomenon. Since it affects the linear order of morphemes, it
applies in the Linear Operations component after all operations that have an effect
on agreement, which correctly predicts that it has no effect in agreement in T or
C. This also derives the fact that, as in Old Irish verbal complexes (Sect. 5.2.2),
it has a significant effect on allomorphy in both the metathesized clitic and its
adjacent morpheme T, since the Linear Operations component precedes Vocabulary
Insertion. Furthermore, an analysis in terms of both a general constraint and repair
rules accounts for both the cross-dialectal and dialect-specific properties of the
phenomenon. These facts provide strong evidence for our analysis of the Ergative
Metathesis and related processes, as well as for central aspects of the derivational
organization of the postsyntactic component proposed in this book.
5.4.2 Ergative Doubling
Given the Generalized Reduplication formalism for Ergative Metathesis adopted

here, we expect there to be dialectal variants in which Ergative Doubling occurs:
(115) Ergative doubling
of ClErg .
The main difference between this rule and Ergative Metathesis (105) is the absence
of to the left of the ergative clitic in the structural change of (115). The result is that
the clitic is not deleted from the second reduplicated copy of the linear sequence,
which results in two surface copies of the clitic:
(116) TPast X ClErg
TPast X ClErg
TPast X ClErg TPast X ClErg
ClErg TPast X ClErg
Like Metathesis, Ergative Doubling is triggered by T-Noninitiality, but it preserves
an in-situ copy of the ergative clitic.
Ergative Doubling is well-attested in the literature on Basque auxiliaries
(Albizu and Eguren 2000; Fernndez and Albizu 2000; Rezac 2006:Chap. 4).
In Biscayan varieties it applies in a few forms where Metathesis would be otherwise
expected. Consider, for instance, the contrast between the following forms from
Alboniga:
(117) Ergative Metathesis and Doubling in Alboniga (de Yrizar 1992b:Vol. 1,
470)
a. s -eun -tz -n (>seuntzan)
CL. E.2. SG - PST.3. SG - CL . D .3. SG - CPST
b. s -eu -ku -su -n (>seuskusun)
CL. E.2. SG - PST.3. SG - CL . D .1. PL - CL. E.2. SG - CPST
Ergative Metathesis applies consistently in past ditransitives in this variety, as

illustrated with a second singular ergative clitic in (117a), where it metathesizes
across a third singular dative. Thus, this rule does not have any of the conditions that
we saw in Sect. 5.4.1 on Ergative Metathesis in Lekeitio, Ondarru and Zamudio:
(118) Ergative Metathesis in Alboniga
of ClErg .
However, in the context of a first plural clitic, a second person ergative clitic
undergoes Doubling instead of Metathesis (117b). Thus, this variety has the
following Doubling rule in addition to Ergative Metathesis:
(119) Ergative Doubling in Alboniga
Condition: X contains a first plural dative clitic and ClErg is second
person.
of ClErg .
Since Doubling (119) has a more specific structural description, it prevents Metathe-
sis (105) from applying in this context, in accordance with the Elsewhere Condition
(Kiparsky 1973). The latter applies in all other past tense transitive auxiliaries.
A particularly salient property of Ergative Doubling is the effect that it has on
the realization of the two copies of the affected clitic. The auxiliary-initial copy
in (117b) has the case-neutral form s-, while the exponent realizing the in-situ
copy is ergative -su. Auxiliaries with Doubling provide strong confirmation of the
hypothesis that Ergative Metathesis/Doubling occurs prior to Vocabulary Insertion,
since the two positionally-dependent forms that an ergative clitic has (in-situ or
auxiliary-initial) can appear in a single auxiliary.
We view the existence of Doubling as strong evidence for our formulation

of Ergative Metathesis in terms of Harris and Halles Generalized Reduplication
formalism. In this type of analysis, dialectal alternations between Metathesis and
Doubling are expected, since they are the result of minor changes in the formulation
of the relevant rules. In this sense, Ergative Metathesis and Doubling have strong
parallels with the agreement displacement phenomena in Spanish imperatives
discussed in Sect. 5.2.1 above, which justifies our adoption of the Generalized Redu-
plication formalism. Furthermore, the fact that Ergative Metathesis and Doubling
are linear rules that operate on abstract morphemes (as mentioned in the previous
paragraph) provides a strong argument for our hypothesis that Linearization occurs
prior to Vocabulary Insertion, and that Generalized Reduplication can apply to
abstract structures that lack exponence.
Clear cases of Ergative Doubling are also found in other Biscayan varieties,
including Ispaster, Amoroto, Arrasate, and Bergara.25 In all of them, the interaction
between Doubling and Metathesis is similar to the Alboniga pattern: Doubling
applies in very specific cases, Metathesis being the elsewhere rule.
In the auxiliaries of the three dialects discussed in detail in the present book,
Ergative Doubling is only present in Zamudio. This particular case involves
Doubling of a third person ergative clitic, and is discussed in Sect. 5.4.4 below. Other
than this, Doubling is found in main (nonauxiliary) finite verbs.26 The following are
some relevant examples from Ondarru:
(120) Ergative Doubling in Ondarru
a. Su-k txakur polit bat-0/
you(Sg)-ERG dog pretty a.ABS
s -e -kua -su -n.
CL. E.2. SG - PST.3. SG -have - CL. E.2. SG - CPST
You(Sg) had a pretty dog. (Ondarru)
b. Sue-k asko-0/
you(Pl)-ERG much.ABS
s -e -ki -su -e -n. (>sekixuen)
CL. E.2 - PST.3. SG -know - CL. E.2 - CL . E . PL - CPST
You(Pl) knew a lot. (Ondarru)
25 The relevant data can be found in the following sources: Gaminde (1984:Vol. 3) on pp. 334335
(Ispaster), 349350 (Amoroto), and 559560 (Bergara), and de Yrizar (1992b:Vol. 2) on
pp. 405408 (Bergara) and 527530 (Arrasate). In other varieties, it is not clear how to interpret
some of the data. In particular, Oati seems to have Ergative Doubling in monotransitive forms
with a second person ergative like s-itu-su-n (Gaminde 1984:Vol. 3, 569). However, the initial s-
could also be interpreted as an exponent of an epenthetic L-morpheme (Sect. 5.4.3 below), given
the distribution of this particular allomorph of L in this dialect. See Sect. 5.6.1 below for other
Metathesis/Doubling facts in Oati.
26 See Sect. 1.4.5 in Chap. 1 and Sect. 3.5 in Chap. 3 for our view of the morphosyntax of finite
forms of main verbs.

In this dialect, Doubling is limited to second person ergative clitics in the verbs euki
have (120a) and jakin know (120b). In Lekeitio, it is found only in first plural
ergative forms of jakin (Hualde et al. 1994:134). As in the other dialects discussed
above, Ergative Doubling has a very specific structural description, and Metathesis
is the elsewhere process.
5.4.3 L-Support
Another strategy used in satisfying T-Noninitiality in the absence of an absolutive

clitic is L-support, illustrated in many examples in this book, for instance (101) and
(108). Like other operations triggered by T-Noninitiality, L-Support applies in the
Linear Operations component, and it inserts an abstract morpheme L to shield T
from auxiliary-initial position:
(121) L-Support
a. Structural description: [T0max T
b. Structural change: Insert L to the immediate left of T.
As in Italian infinitives (Sect. 5.2.4), Basque L-Support applies in cases when no
other operation can satisfy T-Noninitiality. In the particular case of Basque finite
verbs, the structural description of this rule is more general than Ergative Metathesis
and Doubling (see previous subsections): the latter require the presence of an
ergative clitic in the linear sequence (among other conditions), while the former
does not. Thus, L-Support is correctly predicted to be the default strategy to satisfy
T-Noninitiality in the Linear Operations component. It applies in all cases where T
is initial but where Ergative Metathesis or Doubling are not available, such as in
the present tense, in auxiliaries without ergative clitics, and in cases of failure of
application of these processes due to dialect-particular conditions on the rules.27
In addition, like the other T-Noninitiality repair strategies discussed here, (121)
is correctly predicted to not affect agreement with the absolutive argument (see
discussion at the beginning of Sect. 5.4.1 above).
The realization of L is the source of quite a bit of variation in Biscayan. In most
varieties, it has four allomorphs: d-, s-, 0-,/ and a fourth one whose form varies
with the specific variety (y, dx, or g in the dialects discussed here). The choice of
a specific exponent for L is highly dependent on features in T. As shown in detail
below, y/dx/g is restricted to some subset of applicative intransitive auxiliary forms,
s- or 0-
/ are inserted in most past tense forms, and d is the default exponent. It is clear
from this brief description that these cannot be entries for a third person absolutive
clitic, for reasons discussed in Sect. 3.3.5 in Chap. 3.
27 In dialects with other Generalized Reduplication rules, such as Dative Doubling in Oati
(Sect. 5.6.1), these block application of L-Support as well.

The specific vocabulary entries required to account for the exponence of L in

Lekeitio, Ondarru and Zamudio are the following:
(122) Default proclitic exponents in Lekeitio
a. s [ ] / [have, appl, +past] Past nonapplicative intransitive
b. 0/ [ ] / [+have, +past] Past transitive
c. dx [ ] / [have, +appl] Applicative intransitive
d. d [ ] / T
(123) Default proclitic exponents in Ondarru
a. s [ ] / [have, appl, +past]Past nonapplicative intransitive
b. 0/ [ ] / [+have, appl, +past] Past monotransitive
c. g [ ] / [have, +appl] Applicative intransitive
d. d [ ] / T
(124) Default proclitic exponents in Zamudio
a. s [ ] / [have, appl, +past]Past nonapplicative intransitive
b. 0/ [ ] / [+have, +past] Past transitive
c. y [ ] / [have, +appl, +past] Past applicative intransitive
d. d [ ] / T
These entries illustrate both the T-dependent allomorphy of L, as well as the
variation alluded to above. The three features in T that are crucial in determining
the distribution of the allomorphs are [past, have, appl], the latter two in
turn depending on the distribution of dative and ergative clitics in the auxiliary
The fact that one of the possible exponents of this position is 0/ shows that T-
Noninitiality is a condition on abstract structures that must therefore apply before
Vocabulary Insertion. That is, it is an abstract condition on the linear arrangement
of morphemes in the auxiliary that can be satisfied by any abstract morpheme, even
if the latter happens to be assigned null exponence at a later point in Vocabulary
Insertion. This aspect of our analysis finds converging evidence in the exponence of
metathesized and doubled ergative clitics, which, as shown in previous subsections,
must be determined after these operations apply. Note furthermore that an alternative
analysis that attempts to explain auxiliaries that have a null first position as
exceptions to T-Noninitiality is not tenable, since 0/ is not the default option for
realizing this position. As can be seen in the Ondarru entries in (123), 0/ has a
very specific distribution in this dialect (past monotransitives), and default d has
a paradigmatically heterogeneous distribution typical of default items (present tense
transitives and nonapplicative intransitives, and past tense ditransitives).
An important property of all the entries above is that they are not specific to the
L-morpheme; in fact, they do not have any morphosyntactic feature specification
at all (other than in the contextual restriction). They are simply default entries
for whatever morpheme is linearized to the left of T. This can be L, as discussed
above, but it can also be a third person ergative occurring in proclitic position due
to Ergative Metathesis or Doubling. This latter case is discussed in the following
subsection.
5.4.4 Ergative Metathesis and Doubling of Third Person Clitics
Our analysis of Ergative Metathesis (and Doubling) in the preceding subsections

predicts that third person ergative clitics undergo the rule, given the right context.28
The following is a relevant example:
(125) Third singular ergative in past transitives
Ni-re anaje difuntu-ek bat-0/ il-0/
my-GEN brother late-ERG.SG one-ABS kill-PRF
0/ -eu -n (>euen) sortzi kilo-ko-a.
CL. E.3. SG - PST.3. SG - CPST eight kilo-LGEN.SG-ABS.SG
My late brother killed one weighing eight kilos.
Like other ergative clitics, the third singular ergative clitic in this example is in initial
position in the auxiliary due to Ergative Metathesis. Since there are no vocabulary
entries specific to third person in this context (Sect. 3.3.2 in Chap. 3), it is realized
by one of the default proclitic exponents discussed in the previous subsection, in
this case 0/ (124b).29 In this subsection, we argue that this is the right interpretation
of the facts, and provide evidence against the prevalent view in the literature that
third person clitics do not undergo Metathesis.30
As first noted explicitly in Heath (1976:208), examples like (125) cannot be
used to show that third person ergative clitics undergo Metathesis. This is because
unmetathesized third person ergative is typically realized as 0. / Thus, from a neutral
point of view, the auxiliary in (125) can be parsed in two different ways:
(126) Possible analyses of auxiliary euen in (125)
a. With Ergative Metathesis:
0/ -eu -n
CL. E.3. SG - PST.3. SG - CPST
b. Without Ergative Metathesis:
0/ -eu -/0/ -n
L - PST.3. SG - CL. E.3. SG - CPST
In our analysis, represented in (126a), the ergative clitic metathesizes to initial

position, where it is realized as 0/ in this example. As a consequence, no ergative
proclitic is present following T. If, on the other hand, it does not undergo Ergative
28 The only exceptions are due to conditions imposed on the application of the rule in ditransitive
auxiliaries, discussed at the end of Sect. 5.4.1.

29 A metathesized third person ergative clitic is not always realized as 0.
/ For instance, in Ondarru,
default d (123d) is inserted in past ditransitives (see Tables A.7 and A.8 in Appendix A).
30 We illustrate the generalizations and claims made in this subsection with examples from Zamudio
and Lekeitio. For all relevant forms in the three dialects studied in this book, see Tables A.6A.8
in Appendix A.
Metathesis (126b), it is expected to surface after T, but its null realization (typical
for third ergative enclitics) prevents us from distinguishing this analysis from one
where the clitic does metathesize.31 Under this parse, T is preceded by a 0/ exponent,
but in this case it is the realization of L, inserted to satisfy T-Noninitiality.
This ambiguity in parsing examples like (125) has driven most authors to claim
that third person clitics are not subject to Ergative Metathesis (i.a. de Azkue
1925:556557). A potential argument that this is indeed the case is presented
in Bossong (1984:349350) and Ortiz de Urbina (1989:1112), based on the
realization of third plural ergative clitics in the relevant contexts:
(127) Third plural ergative in past transitives
Bey-en bat-en narru-e nonon-dik tope-ta
cow-GEN one-GEN hide-ABS.SG somewhere-ABL find-IMP
0/ -eu -e -n. (>euren)
CL . E .3 - PST.3. SG - CL. E. PL - CPST
They used to find some cows hide somewhere.
Like other third person clitics, the ergative clitic in this example triggers Plural
Fission (Sect. 3.3.4 in Chap. 3), observable in this case by the presence of plural -e
in enclitic position. Bossong and Ortiz de Urbina take this to mean that this example
has no ergative in proclitic position. If this is the right interpretation, examples of
this sort provide an argument that third person clitics do not undergo Metathesis (or
Doubling).
We believe, however, that this is not the correct conclusion. The facts in
auxiliaries with a third plural ergative clitic are perfectly compatible with an analysis
where the clitic undergoes Metathesis. This is illustrated in the following derivation
for the auxiliary in (127):
(128) Plural Fission and Ergative Metathesis in (127)

T D
+past Ergative

Plural Fission
part part C

author author
+singular singular
31 Notethat a third parse is possible, in which the ergative clitic undergoes Doubling. In fact, we
argue below that Ergative Doubling of third person is attested in Biscayan dialects, though this
may not be possible to determine in the specific case of (125).

T
+past D D

Ergative
Ergative C
Erg Metathesis
part
part part
author
author singular
+singular

T
D +past D

Ergative Ergative
part CVI
part part

author
author singular
+singular
0/ -eu -e -n
Plural Fission splits the ergative clitic into two separate nodes, one fully specified
for (third) person, and the other specified for (plural) number. Ergative Metathesis
then applies to the person clitic, as discussed in Sect. 5.4.1. Therefore, the presence
of enclitic plural -e in the context of a third plural ergative clitic is compatible with a
Metathesis parse for this auxiliary, and the claim that the clitic does not metathesize
is not warranted.32
Furthermore, it seems that our conclusion is valid independently of particular
analyses of Ergative Metathesis. For Bossong and Ortiz de Urbinas hypothesis to
be valid, it would have to be the case that plural enclitic -e can never be associated
with a clitic in proclitic position. That this is not the case is evinced by the fact that
it surfaces in the context of a second plural absolutive clitic:
(129) Plural -e doubling a second plural absolutive argument
Bixitze bi-0/ ego-n s -intz -e -n (>sintzien)
life two-ABS be-PRF CL.A.2 -PST.2.PL -CL.A.PL -CPST
suo-k.
you(Pl)-ABS
You(Pl) were there for a very long time. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:70)
Furthermore, it is also present in the context of a metathesized second plural ergative
clitic, as shown in Sect. 5.4.1 above:
(130) Plural Fission and Ergative Metathesis of second plural
mortzillad-a euk-i
black.pudding.meal-ABS.SG have-PRF
s -endu -e -n -a
CL. E.2 - PST.3. SG - CL. E. PL - CREL - ABS . SG
the place where you(Pl) had a black pudding meal
32 Note that auxiliaries with Ergative Metathesis provide the only examples where enclitic -e is
associated with a third person proclitic. Since third person absolutive arguments do not trigger
cliticization, -e can never be the result of Plural Fission from a third person absolutive clitic.
This last example is decisive, since it conclusively shows that enclitic -e is

compatible with a metathesized ergative clitic, independently of ones particular
analysis of Ergative Metathesis. Thus, the presence of -e in third plural ergative
auxiliaries cannot be taken as evidence against an Ergative Metathesis analysis of
these forms.
The evidence presented so far is thus neutral as to the question of whether
third person clitics are subject to Ergative Metathesis/Doubling. Since third person
ergative proclitics are typically null, the relevant auxiliaries can be interpreted as
containing no ergative enclitic (because of Metathesis), or as containing a null
ergative enclitic (because of absence of Metathesis). However, in a particular
context, a third person ergative proclitic has an overt realization as -o in many
Biscayan varieties, including Lekeitio and Zamudio (Sect. 3.3.2 in Chap. 3):
(131) Allomorphy in third person ergative clitic
a. Eusi-0/ i-ten d -o -tz -o (>tzo) baye.
bark-ABS do-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.D.3.SG -CL.E.3.SG but
It barks at him, though. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:303)
b. ama-k dei-txute
mother-ERG.SG call-IMP
d -o -tz -o -n -ian. (>otzonian)
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . D .3. SG - CL. E.3. SG - CREL - IN . SG
when her mother calls her (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:224)
As shown in this example, a third person ergative clitic surfaces with allomorph -o
when preceded by a third singular dative clitic. Crucially, this exponent is absent in
the past tense counterpart of the auxiliary in (131):
(132) Ergative Metathesis of third person
a. Loy-e eroa-te
dirt-ABS.SG take-IMP
0/ -o -tz -n (>otzen) axe-ak.
CL. E.3. SG - PST.3. SG - CL . D .3. SG - CPST wind-ERG.SG
The wind used to take the dirt away from it.
b. Tiburon tigre ero ber-ak esa-ten ei
shark tiger or he-ERG.SG say-IMP EVID
0/ -eu -tz -n. (>eutzan)
Apparently he called it tiger shark.
Unlike previous examples of third ergative in the past tense, these auxiliaries
cannot be interpreted as containing a null third person ergative enclitic. If the
ergative were in enclitic position in these examples, it would remain right-adjacent
to the third singular dative clitic, thus triggering insertion of the allomorph -o,
contrary to fact. This provides evidence that the third person ergative clitic is
metathesized, as represented in the glosses in these examples.
As discussed in Sect. 3.3.2 in Chap. 3, an alternative analysis of -o is possible
where it is in fact part of a third singular dative allomorph -tzo, restricted to the
context of a right-adjacent third person ergative clitic. The argument presented
above is also valid under this analysis, albeit in a slightly more complicated way:
the fact that the dative clitic allomorph in (132) is -tz, not -tzo, signals the absence
of an ergative clitic to its right, which must therefore be metathesized.
To summarize so far, the surface form of most past tense auxiliaries with third
person ergative clitics are ambiguous with respect to Ergative Metathesis. However,
examples like (132) show that at least some of these auxiliaries do involve Ergative
Metathesis in some dialects. Given that (1) there is evidence that the third person
ergative metathesizes in some varieties, and (2) there is no evidence one way or
another in other varieties, we adopt the more parsimonious analysis that third person
ergative clitics always metathesize in all varieties of Basque (modulo the restrictions
applying in ditransitives and discussed in Sect. 5.4.1).
Finally, it should be noted that alongside otzen in Zamudio (132a), forms with
the third person ergative enclitic allomorph -o are also possible in this variety:
(133) Ergative Doubling of third person in Zamudio
Banku-ek agarre-0/
bank-ERG.SG take-PRF
0/ -o -tz -o -n.
CL. E.3. SG - PST.3. SG - CL . D .3. SG - CL. E.3. SG - CPST
The bank took it from him. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:209)
Rather than treating this case as an exception to Ergative Metathesis, our analysis
affords an account of this form as a case of optional Ergative Doubling of the third
person ergative clitic, as reflected in the glosses. Doubling results in two copies of
the clitic: one preceding T, which is realized as 0, / as in previous examples, and
another one following the dative clitic. The latter is realized as -o, since it is right-
adjacent to the third singular dative clitic. This example has all the properties of
Ergative Doubling examined in Sect. 5.4.2. First, Ergative Doubling is restricted to
a very specific context (a third ergative in the context of a third singular dative), and
thus pre-empts Metathesis in this context. Second, the two copies of the doubled
clitic have different positionally-dependent realizations, as in all cases of Ergative
Doubling.
To conclude, the surface forms of third person ergative auxiliaries provide
evidence that all ergative clitics, including third person, undergo Metathesis. This
allows us to maintain a formulation of Ergative Metathesis that is maximally simple.
Furthermore, this hypothesis has led us to discover an instance of Ergative Doubling
that had so far passed unnoticed in the literature on the topic.
5.5 Ergative Metathesis as a Metathetic Phenomenon 293
5.4.5 Summary: Noninitiality and Its Repairs
T-Noninitiality is a constraint on finite verbs in all Basque dialects that applies

in the Linear Operations component. Structures that violate it are subject to a
number of repair rules, including Ergative Metathesis and Doubling, and L-Support.
Application of these rules is governed by universal constraints on rule ordering,
and is subject to variation due to dialect-specific conditions on their application.
This analysis provides a satisfactory account of all the relevant aspects of these
phenomena, including the effects of Ergative Metathesis and Doubling on con-
textual allomorphy, the absence of interaction with agreement, and variation in
implementing the cross-dialectal generalization that T is never initial in the finite
verb. Furthermore, the existence of both Ergative Metathesis and Doubling provides
support for our hypothesis that Generalized Reduplication processes can apply prior
to Vocabulary Insertion.
5.5 Ergative Metathesis as a Metathetic Phenomenon
Basque Ergative Metathesis has drawn some attention in the morphosyntactic

literature, which contains widely differing accounts of the phenomenon. The anal-
yses range from syntactic ones that either rely on grammatical function-changing
operations or agreement processes, to morphological ones based on morpheme
displacement or feature neutralization. In this section, we discuss these analyses
in the light of the evidence presented in the previous section, as well as further
arguments present in this literature. We argue that, as proposed here, Ergative
Metathesis is best viewed as a repair due to T-Noninitiality applying in the Linear
Operations component, and formalized as an instance of Generalized Reduplication.
An important difference between previous accounts and the present one is in the
syntactic status of what in this book are analyzed as pronominal clitics. In most
previous accounts, these are considered agreement morphemes, not pronominal
clitics. Since this difference does not seem relevant to the arguments discussed here,
we abstract away from it in this section, and refer to these morphemes as either
agreement or clitics for ease of exposition.
Heaths (1976:208) antipassive analysis is a syntactic account that can be
described as based on a grammatical function-changing process. Under this analysis,
the fact that an ergative argument is crossreferenced in the finite verb by an
exponent that typically crossreferences absolutive arguments is taken as evidence
that the ergative argument has in some sense absolutive syntax.33 Ortiz de Urbina
(1989:1015) and Laka (1993a:5354) provide convincing argumentation against
33 Ortiz
de Urbina (1989:1015) discusses a different syntactic account based on split ergativity.
He points out several shortcomings of this type of analysis, including the fact that the alleged split
does not fall along the lines of cross-linguistically attested ergative splits.
this type of syntactic analysis based on two crucial observations. First, morpholog-
ical case marking of the arguments in sentences with Ergative Metathesis does not
change with respect to sentences without it. This can be observed, for instance, in
the Ondarru minimal pair in (108) and (109), repeated here:
(134) Ergative/absolutive case marking in sentences with or without Ergative
Metathesis
a. No Ergative Metathesis (present tense)
Sue-k Jon-0/ ikus-te
you(Pl)-ERG Jon-ABS see-IMP
d -o -su -e. (>sue)
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . E .2 - CL . E . PL
You(Pl) see Jon. (Ondarru)
b. Ergative Metathesis (past tense)
Furthermore, c-command relations among the arguments are not altered under
Ergative Metathesis, as diagnosed by reflexives subject to Condition A (Sect. 1.4.5
in Chap. 1). In the present tense (with no Metathesis), the absolutive object can be a
reflexive, but not the ergative subject:
(135) Reflexives in the absence of Ergative Metathesis
a. Gu-k geu-re buru-0/ ikus-i
we-ERG our-GEN head-ABS.SG see-PRF
d -o -gu. (>rou)
L - PRS .3. SG - CL . E .1. PL
Weve seen ourselves. (Ondarru)
b. *Gu-re buru-k geu-0/ ikus-i
our-GEN head-ERG.SG us-ABS see-PRF
g -aitu -0.
/ (>gatxu)
Weve seen ourselves. (Ondarru)
The same pattern emerges in the context of Ergative Metathesis:
(136) Reflexives in the context of Ergative Metathesis
a. Gu-k geu-re buru-0/ ikus-i g -endu -n.
we-ERG our-GEN head-ABS.SG see-PRF CL.E.1.PL -PST.3.SG -CPST
We saw ourselves. (Ondarru)
b. *Gu-re buru-k geu-0/ ikus-i
our-GEN head-ERG us-ABS see-PRF
g -indu -0/ -n. (>giddun)
CL . A .1. PL - PST.1. PL - CL . E .3. PL - CPST
We saw ourselves. (Ondarru)
Thus, a successful analysis of Ergative Metathesis cannot be based on altering the

grammatical function of the doubled ergative argument.
A second type of syntactic analysis of Ergative Metathesis is agreement-based
and does not rely on changes in grammatical function. It was first proposed in
Fernndez (1997), and further developed in Fernndez and Albizu (2000) and Rezac
(2003, 2006). The following description of this type of account is based on the latter
work, but our comments apply equally well to all of them (modulo certain minor
differences). It relies on the following set of claims and empirical assumptions:
(137) Agreement-based syntactic accounts of Ergative Metathesis
a. The initial exponent in the Basque finite verb is the realization of
person agreement by v.
b. v is an Agree head that probes for person features.
c. An Agree head first probes in its complement domain for a matching
Goal; if this is not successful (and under certain language-particular
conditions) the search domain is expanded to the specifier of the head
(and potentially to even higher positions).
d. Third person elements lack person features.
The properties of the initial exponent in sentences with participant absolutive
arguments follow from (137a)(137c)34 :
(138) Absolutive agreement/cliticization
Ikus-i n -a -su -e -n.
see-PRF CL.A.1.SG -PST.1.SG -CL.E.2 -CL.E.PL -CPST
You(Pl) saw me. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:126)
In this analysis, the first singular exponent n- is the morphological reflex of Agree
between the person Probe in v and the (pro-dropped) internal argument in its
complement domain. Given (137d), this Agree relation fails if the internal argument
is third person, which forces the person Probe in v to expand its search to a higher
position. If the external argument (in the specifier of v) is participant, it is a proper
Goal for Agree, and therefore triggers person agreement in v:
(139) Ergative Metathesis
34 In this section, we limit our comments to aspects of this analysis that are directly related to
Ergative Metathesis. Our analysis of Basque finite verbs crucially rejects (137a) on independent
grounds, as discussed in Sect. 1.4.3 in Chap. 1 and Sect. 3.5 in Chap. 3.
In the absence of a [+participant] internal argument, the exponent s- in this example

is the realization of person agreement with the second person external argument.35
The claim in (137d) is crucial in this account, and is the rough counterpart of
our claim that Basque lacks third person absolutive cliticization. However, (137d) is
stated as a property of all Basque third person arguments, including ergatives. Thus,
as stated explicitly in work adopting this type of analysis, it predicts that Ergative
Metathesis is not available in sentences with third person ergative arguments, since
only participant arguments can match the person Probe in v. This prediction is not
borne out, as illustrated by the examples in (132), repeated here:
(140) Ergative Metathesis of third person
a. Loy-e eroa-te
dirt-ABS.SG take-IMP
0/ -o -tz -n (>otzen) axe-ak.
The wind used to take the dirt away from it.
b. Tiburon tigre ero ber-ak esa-ten ei
shark tiger or he-ERG.SG say-IMP EVID
0/ -eu -tz -n. (>eutzan)
Apparently he called it tiger shark.
As discussed in Sect. 5.4.4 above, this prediction is not easy to test, but examples
of this type show that third person ergative clitics do undergo Metathesis, at least in
some dialects.
Given the evidence above against syntactic analyses of Ergative Metathesis, we
now turn to morphological accounts of the phenomenon. Both Bonet (1991:226
229) and Albizu (2002) view Ergative Metathesis as the result of neutralization of
case. Consider, for instance, Albizus (2002) analysis. First, morphological cases are
analyzed in terms of more primitive features organized in feature-geometric terms:
35 As shown Sect. 5.4, Ergative Metathesis is restricted to the past tense. In the present tense, as
well as in auxiliaries without an ergative morpheme, L-Support applies instead. In this type of
syntactic analysis of Ergative Metathesis, the tense condition is implemented in different ways,
and L-Support is treated either as a last resort insertion of an expletive morpheme, or as a case
of default realization of person agreement. See Fernndez and Albizu (2000:113115) and Rezac
(2006:Chap. 2) for details.
(141) Absolutive and ergative case in Albizu (2002:2)

Absolutive Ergative
[CASE] [CASE]
[ MARK] [+ MARK]
[ OBL]
[+ ARG]
Second, the typical placement of clitics according to case in the auxiliary is achieved
by specifying clitic exponents as either prefixes (preceding the root) or suffixes
(following the root)36:
(142) Clitic/agreement exponents in Albizu (2002:8) (Batua)
a. Second singular colloquial ergative
/-k/ [+2, +FAM, + MASC, + MARK]
b. Second singular colloquial absolutive/default
/ [+2, +FAM]
/0-/
While suffixes (142a), which realize ergative morphemes, are specified for case,
prefixes (142b), which typically realize absolutive morphemes, are not specified for
case. Albizu proposes the following Impoverishment rule to account for Ergative
Metathesis:
(143) Ergative Metathesis in Albizu (2002:16)
[CASE, + MARK, OBL, + ARG] [CASE]
in env. [ MARK, PART] + . . . + [ , + PART] + [ PRES]
This rule deletes all case features except for [CASE] in an ergative morpheme in
the context of a third person absolutive morpheme in the past tense.37 As a result, the
impoverished morpheme is realized with a default prefix exponent (142b) instead of
the suffix (142a) that typically realizes ergative morphemes.
This case neutralization-based of Ergative Metathesis relies on claims about
the vocabulary entries for clitics/agreement that are similar to ours (Sect. 3.3.2 in
Chap. 3). However, this type of analysis cannot be extended to account for Ergative
Doubling (see Sect. 5.4.2 for relevant examples). Impoverishment of case in ergative
morphemes results in total neutralization with absolutive morphemes, and can thus
36 Albizus analysis is restricted to Batua, the standard dialect. He illustrates his analysis with
second singular colloquial forms, absent in the Biscayan dialects discussed here (Sect. 1.4.5 in
Chap. 1). Two aspects of second singular colloquial morphology are relevant here. First, second
singular colloquial enclitic exponents encode gender, hence the presence of + MASC in the feature
specification of /-k/ in (142a). Second, Albizu provides /-k, -a-/ as the exponent in (142a), in
order to encode phonologically-conditioned allomorphy in this position (word-final /k/ vs. /a/
elsewhere).
37 Albizu also further restricts Metathesis to nonthird ergative clitics.
not account for cases in which a syntactically ergative morpheme surfaces both in
absolutive and ergative-like guise.
Of all the previous analyses of Ergative Metathesis in the literature, Laka (1993a)
and Albizu and Eguren (2000) are the most similar to ours, since they rely on a
morphological requirement on the first position in the auxiliary that is equivalent
to our T-Noninitiality condition. We summarize these two analyses immediately
below.38
Our analysis of the phenomenon as a metathetic rule has its clearest precedent in
Laka (1993a). Under that account finite auxiliaries have the following structure39:
(144) Monotransitive auxiliaries in Laka (1993a:3845)
T
I T
Abs I Erg T
Like other analyses reviewed here, included ours, these terminal nodes are abstract
in the syntax, with exponents being inserted in the postsyntactic component. Two
claims are at the center of Lakas analysis of Ergative Metathesis. First, unlike other
agreement morphemes, Basque lacks exponents for third person absolutive. Second,
she adopts a condition similar to our T-Noninitiality:
(145) Avoid: Abs (Laka 1993a:61)
[ 0/ ]
These two claims are in conflict in auxiliaries with a third person absolutive
morpheme, which triggers different repair operations. In the past tense, the repair
used is postsyntactic movement of Erg to Abs, which, after Vocabulary Insertion,
results in the overt realization of Abs. Laka proposes that this movement is licensed
by the presence of an overt morpheme in T (our C), which is -n in the past tense and
-0/ in the present (Sect. 2.6 in Chap. 2).40
38 Similar ideas are found in de Azkue (1925:556) and Bossong (1984:345353).

39 Laka treats all morphemes crossreferencing arguments as agreement, including ones analyzed as
pronominal clitics here. These morphemes are directly head-adjoined to their associated functional
heads, and agree with arguments in the specifier position of these functional heads. (144) abstracts
away from a Modal (M) head that hosts datives (see Sect. 2.3 in Chap. 2 for evidence that dative
and absolutive clitics are hosted by the same head). The auxiliary structure is derived by Head
Movement from the following sentence structure:
(i) [TP [MP [IP [AspP VP Asp ] I ] M ] T ]
Laka identifies the head I with the root of the auxiliary, in a way very similar to our analysis, where
absolutive clitics are adjoined to the root. Ergative morphemes are adjoined to a higher T(ense)
head, equivalent to our C head (see Sect. 2.6 for evidence that this high head is C, not T).
40 Laka adopts ideas from Aoun et al. (1987), where it is claimed that traces of movement must be
licensed by government by a head at PF.

Another analysis that is based on a condition similar to T-Noninitiality is Albizu

and Eguren (2000). Like Bonet (1991) and Albizu (2002), this is an approach to
Ergative Metathesis based on case neutralization. However, it does not rely on an
Impoverishment rule, but on the interaction of Optimality Theoretic constraints that
regulate the mapping of abstract morphemes to exponents, mediated by vocabulary
entries similar to those found in Albizu (2002)41:
(146) Clitic/agreement exponents in Albizu and Eguren (2000:14) (Batua)
a. First singular ergative
[+1, ERG] /-t/
b. First singular absolutive/default
[+1] /n-/
The two crucial constraints are the following:
(147) OT-constraints in Albizu and Eguren (2000:16)
a. PARSE(F): every feature in the morphosyntactic input has a corre-
spondent in the lexical output.
b. OBPREF: Basque finite verbal forms must have a prefix.
c. Ranking: OBPREF >> PARSE(F)
PARSEF ensures that ergative morphemes are typically realized by suffixes, which,
as in (146a), are fully specified for case. OBPREF is equivalent to our T-Noninitiality
condition, and it is satisfied by insertion of case-neutral prefix entries such as (146b)
in auxiliaries with participant absolutive morphemes. According to Albizu and
Eguren (2000), Basque lacks vocabulary entries for third person absolutive. Thus,
in auxiliaries with a third person absolutive, the ergative is realized with a prefix
(146b) instead of a suffix (146a). This results in a violation of PARSEF in order to
satisfy the higher ranked OBPREF.
The accounts of Ergative Metathesis in Laka (1993a) and Albizu and Eguren
(2000) are based on ideas similar to those adopted here, and our analysis can
be seen as a particular implementation of this type of approach within a general
framework of postsyntactic morpheme displacement operations. There are, however,
two aspects of our account that crucially differ from these two previous works. First,
in our analysis, the defectiveness of third person absolutive is syntactic: third person
absolutive arguments do not cliticize. This claim is crucial not only in our account
of Ergative Metathesis, but finds independent evidence in the analysis it affords
of PCC effects (Sect. 2.3 in Chap. 2)42 and the distribution of plural enclitic -e
41 The actual exponent for (146b) in Albizu and Eguren (2000) is specified as /-t, -da-/, in order to
account for contextual allomorphy in this position in Batua (word final /t/ and elsewhere /da/).
42 Note also that syntactic defectiveness of third person absolutive is also needed in alternative
accounts of the PCC. Thus, this criticism of Laka (1993a) and Albizu and Eguren (2000) is
independent of our particular analysis of PCC effects. See Sect. 2.3 in Chap. 2 for relevant
references.
(Sect. 3.3.5 in Chap. 3). On the other hand, the defectiveness of third absolutive in
Laka (1993a) and Albizu and Eguren (2000) is morphophonological: third person
absolutive clitic/agreement morphemes are present, but have no (overt) exponence.
This claim seems too weak to be useful in an account of PCC effects or the absence
of plural -e doubling third person absolutive arguments.43
This difference between our analysis and Laka (1993a) and Albizu and Eguren
(2000) is related to a more general one having to do with the architecture of
the grammar and the types of interactions it establishes between operations. As
discussed in Sect. 1.2 in Chap. 1, we assume a model where different modules
of grammar effect different principles and rules in order to account for distinct
aspects of the morphology of words. Furthermore, the derivational architecture of
the grammar predicts very specific types of interactions between principles and rules
in separate modules. In particular, since Vocabulary Insertion occurs after the Linear
Operations component (where T-Noninitiality and its repairs apply), facts about the
exponence of any given morpheme can as a matter of principle have no effect on
the application of T-Noninitiality and its repairs. This, however, is not the case in
Laka (1993a) and Albizu and Eguren (2000). The latter work adopts an Optimality-
Theoretic model that explicitly rejects derivational interactions. In Lakas analysis,
couched in a GB-style framework, phonological properties of certain morphemes
(T and Abs) constrain a movement operation (Erg to Abs) that occurs before
these morphemes acquire exponence. We believe the derivational modular approach
adopted here to be on the right track, and evidence for this aspect of the theory
is presented in Chap. 6, which deals with the predictions it makes with respect to
interactions between different operations.
Another unique aspect of our account of T-Noninitiality and its repairs is
our approach to variation in the phenomenon across Basque dialects. As shown
in the previous section, although the generalization that T is always in second
position is true throughout Basque, different operations (Ergative Metathesis,
Ergative Doubling, L-Support and others discussed below) compete to make this
generalization surface-true, and it is in the precise distribution of these operations
that one finds dialectal variation. In our analysis, T-Noninitiality is a general
condition on morpheme order not subject to variation, and the operations it triggers
are implemented as rules, which provides a natural locus for dialectal variation in
terms of dialect-particular conditions on their application. On the other hand, Laka
(1993a) and Albizu and Eguren (2000) provide accounts of Ergative Metathesis and
related phenomena based only on general conditions on Basque finite verbs, and
thus have no straightforward way of accounting for dialectal variation. For instance,
Laka (1993a) derives the fact that Ergative Metathesis is restricted to the past tense
from general conditions on movement, but this predicts that Metathesis should be
effected in the past tense in all transitive forms with third person absolutive in
all dialects, contrary to fact. Albizu and Eguren (2000:1921) attempt to derive
43 See, however, Albizu (1997) for an analysis of PCC effects that does not rely on defectiveness
of third person absolutive.

the restriction of Ergative Metathesis to the past tense by ranking *HOMOPHONY

high, an output-output constraint that militates against homophony in an inflectional
paradigm. Whatever the merits of this approach, it also incorrectly predicts that
Ergative Metathesis applies in all transitive past tense forms with third person
absolutive in all dialects.
To conclude, our analysis shares several basic ideas with several previous
accounts. For instance, like the agreement-based syntactic accounts and the mor-
phological accounts in Laka (1993a) and Albizu and Eguren (2000), our analysis
is based on (1) a requirement on a specific position in the auxiliary, and (2) the
defectiveness of third person. It also shares the intuition of other morphological
accounts that Ergative Metathesis is a postsyntactic phenomenon internal to the
auxiliary. However, our analysis is unique in accounting for all core properties
of this phenomenon. First, analyzing Ergative Metathesis as a postsyntactic phe-
nomenon explains the absence of parallel syntactic effects in the arguments doubled
by metathesized clitics. Second, our specific claims about the syntax of third
person clitics account for the evidence showing that third person ergative clitics
metathesize. Third, the hypothesis that T-Noninitiality and its repairs apply in
the Linear Operations component prior to Vocabulary Insertion accounts for the
effects of Ergative Metathesis and Doubling on allomorphy, as well as the fact
that T-Noninitiality can be satisfied by null exponents. Fourth, our adoption of the
Generalized Reduplication formalism explains the presence of Ergative Doubling
as a dialectal variant of Ergative Metathesis. Finally, our analysis in terms of both
general constraints and rules with dialect-specific conditions provides the right
framework in which to account for dialectal variation. All previous accounts have
difficulties in accounting for one or more of these properties. Our analysis, adopting
insights found in previous literature, provides a natural explanation of all these
features of Ergative Metathesis and related phenomena.
One final property of Ergative Metathesis (and Doubling) we would like to
mention in this overview is the fact that it is limited to the past tense. Despite the
variation found in the phenomenon, this is one aspect in which variation is almost
null. In all the descriptive literature we have consulted, we have only found two
counterexamples to this generalization. The first one is reported for the town of
Olatzagutia in de Yrizar (1991:Vol. 2, 223224) (Guipuscoan dialect), and only in
two present tense ditransitive forms. They are reported for a single speaker of this
variety (see de Yrizar 1991:Vol. 2, 219, 239240 and Rezac 2006:Chap. 2, 3435
for relevant discussion). The second counterexample seems more systematic and is
found in Berriatua (a Biscayan town very close to Ondarru), where, for younger
speakers, first plural ergative clitics undergo Metathesis in present (and past) tense
monotransitives:
(148) Ergative Metathesis in the present tense in Berriatua
Baskari-xe etxi-n ja-n g -au.
lunch-ABS.SG house-IN.SG eat-PRF CL.E.1.PL -PRS.3.SG
Weve eaten lunch at home. (Aramaio 2001:19)
Aramaio (2001) also provides d-o-gu as an alternative auxiliary (the only option
for older speakers), with an in-situ ergative clitic -gu.44 Thus, Ergative Metathesis
in the present tense is very limited even in this variety: only in a first person plural
monotransitive, and it is optional (or perhaps subject to idiolectal variation). Leaving
these marginal counterexamples aside, the dialectal stability in the restriction of
Ergative Metathesis to the past tense seems like an important property that should be
derived in a principled way. This is not the case in our analysis (where the restriction
is incorporated as one more condition on the application of the Generalized
Reduplication rule), but most other alternatives fare no better in this respect. The
only analyses that attempt to derive this restriction are Laka (1993a) and Albizu and
Eguren (2000), but, as discussed above, the resulting analyses are too restrictive in
wrongly predicting that Ergative Metathesis should apply in all transitive past tense
forms with third person absolutive in all dialects. Thus, the restriction of Ergative
Metathesis to the past tense is a question in need of further study, regardless of the
particular approach that is taken to this phenomenon.
We would like to suggest the following (highly speculative) explanation of
this fact based on restrictions on historical change.45 The feature [past] marking
tense distinctions in the finite auxiliary is located in T, the root (and also in C; see
Footnote 46 below). However, this node contains several other features ( -features
due to agreement, [have] and [appl]) and is subject to a great deal of syncretism
neutralizing tense distinctions (Sect. 3.4 in Chap. 3). For instance, rules such as Past
Participant T Impoverishment in Lekeitio ((61) in Sect. 3.4.2, Chap. 3) neutralize
tense distinctions (in favor of the present tense), and default vocabulary entries like
transitive -o- have a wide distribution in both the present and past tenses. Therefore,
no uniform overt marking of past tense can be found in the realization of the T node.
We thus speculate that Ergative Metathesis was at some point recruited as a reliable
flag of the past tense.46 If this is on the right track, it is then possible that this has
resulted in pressure to avoid extending this rule to the present tense. We admit that
this account is highly tentative, and leave it as a question for future work.
5.6 Additional Repairs to T-Noninitiality
T-Noninitiality in Basque is satisfied in the Linear Operations module in a number

of ways subject to a great deal of dialectal variation. The morphemes recruited for
this purpose include ergative clitics and epenthetic L, but the analysis developed
44 In addition, d-o-gu has the L-morpheme exponent d-, as expected for the present tense
(Sect. 5.4.3). Note also the alternation in the third singular root: -au- in (148) vs. -o- in d-o-gu. This
is due to contextual allomorphy, similar to what is found in other varieties (Sect. 3.4 in Chap. 3).
45 See Rezac (2006:Chap. 2, 3435) for similar ideas.
46 A possible objection to this hypothesis is that the matrix complementizer exponent -n is restricted
to the past tense, and therefore could also be a reliable flag of this tense (Sect. 2.6). However, it is
also restricted to matrix clauses, which is not true of Ergative Metathesis.
5.6 Additional Repairs to T-Noninitiality 303
so far leads one to expect that other morphemes might be used in satisfying this
constraint.47 In this section, we discuss two other clitic morphemes that undergo
Metathesis and Doubling operations in some dialects, triggered by T-Noninitiality.
Although these operations have a more limited dialectal incidence than others
discussed earlier in this chapter, they provide important additional support for
the analysis proposed here. First, dative clitics are copied in initial position in
some varieties, including Oati (Sect. 5.6.1). Dative Doubling in this variety has
some superficial similarities with Lekeitio First Dative Impoverishment (Sect. 2.4 in
Chap. 2), but we argue in Sect. 5.6.2 that the two phenomena have crucially differing
properties that follow from our division of postsyntactic operations between those
that occur before Linearization and those that apply after. In Sect. 5.6.3, we argue
that allocutive clitics (Sect. 1.4.5 in Chap. 1) also participate in satisfaction of
T-Noninitiality in the Linear Operations module in some dialects. Displacement of
allocutive clitics to initial position provides an additional argument for our claim
that Ergative Metathesis and Doubling are postsyntactic operations.
5.6.1 Dative Doubling in Oati
Within Biscayan, Oati contains clear cases of auxiliaries where a dative clitic
simultaneously surfaces in two separate positions. The following example illustrates
this phenomenon:
(149) Dative Doubling
Har-ek ne-ri sagarr-a emu-n
he-ERG me-DAT apple-ABS.SG give-PRF
n -o -sta -0/ -n.
CL. D.1. SG - PST.3. SG - CL. D.1. SG - CL . E .3. SG - CPST
He gave me the apple. (Oati, Rezac 2008a:710)
Dative Doubling in this dialect is limited to past tense ditransitive auxiliaries with a
first person dative clitic. As reported in de Yrizar (1992b:Vol. 2, 469, 474, 483484),
there is some variation as to further restrictions on the phenomenon. Table 5.4,
adapted from Badihardugu (2005:5),48 represents a particular instantiation of these
47 The only morpheme predicted to not be able to undergo displacement to initial position is plural
clitic -e, for reasons discussed in Sect. 5.4.1 above. As discussed there, this prediction is borne out.
48 The auxiliaries in Table 5.4, which are syncretic for both third singular and plural absolutive
agreement, are given in their surface form. The forms have been adapted in two ways. First, the
parse into separate exponents is ours. Second, Badihardugu (2005) adopts standard Basque spelling
conventions, which distinguish between etymological s and z, and does not represent palatalization
of n when preceded by i (Sect. 1.3.2 in Chap. 1). For instance, s-o-tza-i- in Table 5.4 is given as
zotzain in that work.
Table 5.4 Past tense ditransitive auxiliary in Oati (Badihardugu 2005:5)

Dative
Ergative 1 Singular 1 Plural 2 Singular 2 Plural 3 Singular 3 Plural
1 Singular X X n-o-tzu-n n-o-tzu-e-n n-o-tza-n n-o-0-ste-n
/
1 Plural X X g-o-tzu-n g-o-tzu-e-n g-o-tza-n g-o-0-ste-n
/
2 Singular n-o-sta-su-n s-o-sku-n X X s-o-tza-n s-o-0-ste-n
/
2 Plural n-o-sta-su-e-n s-o-sku-ei- X X s-o-tza-i- s-o-0-sti-ei-
/
3 Singular n-o-sta-0-n
/ 0-o-sku-n
/ 0-o-tzu-n
/ 0-o-tzu-e-n
/ 0-o-tza-n
/ 0-o-
/ 0-ste-n
/
3 Plural n-o-sta-0-i-
/ 0-o-sku-ei-
/ 0-o-tzu-e-n
/ 0-o-tzu-e-i-
/ 0-o-tza-i-
/ 0-o-
/ 0-ste-n
/
restrictions whereby Dative Doubling is limited to all forms with a first singular
dative clitic.49
Dative Doubling shares many properties of Ergative Doubling (Sect. 5.4.2
above). First, it is limited to the past tense. Second, the affected clitic surfaces in
two positions: initial in the auxiliary, and after the root. Third, the two copies of
the clitic surface with positionally-dependent allomorphs: n- and -sta. Fourth, it
does not have an effect on agreement, as evinced by the fact that the root (T) is
-o- in all the forms in Table 5.4, regardless of the presence or absence of Dative
Doubling. Fifth, it is an auxiliary-internal phenomenon, and it does not entail a
change in the syntax of the doubled argument, which keeps its dative case (149).
We thus propose that Dative Doubling, like other processes discussed in Sect. 5.4, is
a Generalized Reduplication rule that applies in the Linear Operations component
as a repair triggered by T-Noninitiality:
(150) Dative Doubling (Oati)
a. Structural description: [T0max TPast ClDat ClErg ,
where ClDat is first person singular.
(i) Insert to the immediate left of T, and to the right of ClDat .
(ii) Insert to the immediate left of ClDat .
This rule has the following effect in a past tense ditransitive auxiliary with a first
singular dative clitic:
49 A more complete analysis of Oati auxiliaries would account for several allomorphy facts that
are significantly different from related patterns in the three varieties studied in detail in this book.
For instance, it is yet to be determined whether the surface allomorph -sta of the first singular dative
enclitic can be accounted for in terms of s-Epenthesis and a-Epenthesis (see Sect. 3.6 in Chap. 3).
Something similar can be said about third singular dative -tza, which unlike its counterpart in
other Biscayan varieties, is limited to third singular. The plural clitic has two main allomorphs,
-e and -te, as in Guipuscoan varieties (Sect. 3.3.4 in Chap. 3). However, these surface in different
forms (-e/i/ei/ and -ste/sti) whose distribution seems to be governed by complex interactions of
morphological and phonological factors. We leave these details, irrelevant for the discussion here,
to future work.
(151) TPast ClDat ClErg

TPast ClDat ClErg
TPast ClDat TPast ClDat ClErg
ClDat TPast ClDat ClErg
Doubling of the dative enclitic in auxiliary-initial position shields T from this
position, thereby satisfying T-Noninitiality. As in Ergative Doubling, the proclitic
copy surfaces as case-neutral n-.
As noted above, there is Oati-internal variation in the distribution of Dative
Doubling. For instance, some speakers extend it to first plural (e.g. g-o-sku-0-n /
instead of 0-o-sku-n
/ in Table 5.4), and yet others restrict its application to the context
of a third person ergative clitic (e.g. s-o-sta-n, with Ergative Metathesis, instead of
n-o-sta-su-n in Table 5.4; see de Yrizar (1992b:Vol. 2, 469)). This variation is easily
accounted for in terms of changes in the structural description of the rule. As with
other processes discussed in this chapter, Dative Doubling is triggered by a general
constraint (T-Noninitiality), and variation is accounted for in terms of the details of
the rule.50
Another relevant property of the Oati past tense ditransitive paradigm
(Table 5.4) is that Ergative Metathesis occurs in all forms except in the context
of a first singular dative clitic. That is, the ergative clitic metathesizes in all cases
where Dative Doubling does not occur. The following are relevant examples of
Ergative Metathesis in this dialect:
(152) Ergative Metathesis in Oati
a. Soldadutz-an esagu-tu n -ittu -an
military.service-IN.SG meet-PRF CL.E.1.SG -PST.3.PL -CPST
andalus-ak.
Andalusian-ABS.PL
I met Andalusians during my military service.
(Oati, Badihardugu 2005:15)
b. Umi-airi bokadillo ba-na-0/ emu-n
child-DAT.PL sandwich one-each-ABS give-PRF
g -o -0/ -ste -n.
CL. E.1. PL - PST.3. SG - CL . D .3 - CL . D . PL - CPST
We gave a sandwich each to the kids.
(Oati, Badihardugu 2005:15)
50 Reporting data collected by Resurreccin Mara de Azkue in the early twentieth century,
de Yrizar (1992b:469) also includes forms such as n-o-sku-n, where the first plural enclitic -sku is
doubled by a first singular proclitic n-. It is not clear to us how these forms should be accounted for.
A possibility is that they do involve Dative Doubling, but in a grammar where first plural proclitic
g- is specified as [peripheral], which makes it incompatible as the realization of a dative clitic.
The result would be insertion of case and number-neutral first person n-.
Dative Doubling is blocked in both examples: in monotransitive (152a) due to the

absence of a dative clitic, and in ditransitive (152b) because the dative clitic is
not first person. Both involve Ergative Metathesis, with an auxiliary-initial ergative
clitic, and thus illustrate the generalization that this operation only applies in cases
where Dative Doubling is blocked.51
This suggests that the order of application of Dative Doubling in the Linear
Operations component is prior to Ergative Metathesis. This allows us to explain
the exceptions to the latter operation, which can then be stated in its most general
form in this dialect:
(153) Ergative Metathesis in Oati
of ClErg .
The observed relation between Dative Doubling and Ergative Metathesis can be
accounted for in two different ways. The first one is with the Minimal Distance
condition (80) proposed in Sect. 5.3.2 above. Consider the effect of applying these
two rules to an auxiliary where both rules could in principle apply (i.e. one with an
ergative clitic and a first singular dative clitic):
(154) Competition between Dative Doubling and Ergative Metathesis in terms
of distance
a. Dative Doubling (150)
TPast ClDat ClErg TPast ClDat ClErg
b. Ergative Metathesis (153)
TPast ClDat ClErg TPast ClDat ClErg
Minimal Distance forces application of Dative Doubling over Ergative Metathesis:
the sequence enclosed in brackets in the former is a subsequence of the sequence
enclosed in brackets in the latter. As discussed with a similar case in Sect. 5.3.2,
this corresponds to the fact that Dative Doubling effects a shorter displacement
(dative clitic to initial position) than Ergative Metathesis (ergative clitic to initial
position). As a result of Dative Doubling, the auxiliary no longer meets the structural
description of Ergative Metathesis (the displaced dative clitic shields T from initial
position), so it does not apply.
51 For a full past tense monotransitive paradigm illustrating Ergative Metathesis in Oati, see
Badihardugu (2005:4).
Our analysis also affords a more conventional way of deriving blocking of

Ergative Metathesis by prior application of Dative Doubing, in terms of the
specificity of the structural descriptions of the rules52 :
(155) a. Structural description of Dative Doubling (150)
[T0max TPast ClDat ClErg , where ClDat is first person singular.
b. Structural description of Ergative Metathesis (153)
[T0max TPast X ClErg
Dative Doubling imposes more specific restrictions on the second term of the
sequence it applies to (the dative clitic). Kiparskys (1973) Elsewhere Condition
entails that Dative Doubling applies first, thus blocking Ergative Metathesis.
Our analysis thus derives blocking in this case in two different ways that are
independently motivated by other processes in Basque finite verbs.
5.6.2 A Typology of Dative Displacements
Dative Doubling in Oati is somewhat reminiscent of First Dative Impoverishment

in Lekeitio, discussed in Sect. 2.4 in Chap. 2. The following is a relevant example of
the latter:
(156) First Dative Impoverishment
Ni-rii ber-ak esa-n
me-DATi he-ERG say-PRF
ni -au -0.
/ (>nau)
CL. A .1. SG i - PRS .1. SG /3. SG - CL . E .3. SG
He has told me so. (Lekeitio, de Azkue 1925:539)
Compare this auxiliary form with the following Oati example, repeated from (149):
(157) Dative Doubling
Har-ek ne-ri sagarr-a emu-n
he-ERG me-DAT apple-ABS.SG give-PRF
n -o -sta -0/ -n.
CL. D.1. SG - PST.3. SG - CL. D.1. SG - CL . E .3. SG - CPST
He gave me the apple. (Oati, Rezac 2008a:710)
These two phenomena are superficially similar, since they both involve a dative
argument being doubled by a clitic in auxiliary-initial position, which is not
canonical for dative clitics. In fact, both phenomena are treated in a unified way
under the rubric of dative displacement in previous literature (Fernndez 2001;
Fernndez and Ezeizabarrena 2003; Rezac 2008a,b). On the other hand, under the
52 SeeSect. 5.4 for a similar way of deciding competition between Ergative Doubling, Ergative
Metathesis, and L-Support.
theory adopted in this book, the two phenomena are of a very different nature:
Lekeitio (156) involves an Impoverishment rule applying early in the postsyntactic
component, and Oati (157) is due to a Generalized Reduplication rule in the
Linear Operations module. In this subsection, we summarize our analyses of the
two phenomena, concentrating on the way that our account explains the differences
between them. We argue that these differences motivate our rejecting a unified
analysis of dative displacement phenomena in Basque auxiliaries. We end the
subsection by describing the typology of Basque dative displacement predicted by
our theory, whose correctness awaits further research into other Basque dialects in
which these phenomena are present.
Consider first our analysis of First Dative Impoverishment in Lekeitio. In
Sect. 2.4.2 in Chap. 2, we propose that it is due to the following rule applying early
in the postsyntactic component:
(158) First Dative Impoverishment (Lekeitio)
a. Structural description: a present tense auxiliary with two clitics Cl1
and Cl2 where
b. Structural change: Cl1 [motion, peripheral, +author].
Under this analysis, the case features of a syntactically first person dative clitic
become absolutive. The result is Linearization of the impoverished clitic in proclitic
position (and realization as n- at Vocabulary Insertion). Importantly, First Dative
Impoverishment, like any other Impoverishment rule, cannot result in two copies of
the same clitic, since it does not involve copying of any sort.53
One of the most salient consequences of this Impoverishment rule is the effect
it has on agreement. In our discussion in Sect. 2.4 in Chap. 2, we argue that
T agreement in Basque is an instance of Multiple Agree with both dative and
absolutive arguments, even though in most dialects (e.g. Ondarru and Zamudio) only
absolutive agreement surfaces in T (and C). The latter fact is analyzed there as the
consequence of a two-step process of agreement. Syntactic Agree-Link merely links
the T Probe with the absolutive and dative Goals, but actual copying of the feature
values onto T occurs in the postsyntactic component by a rule of Agree-Copy which
is subject to the following condition:
(159) Condition on Agree-Copy in Basque
Only feature values from an absolutive Goal can be copied to a Probe.
Since Lekeitio First Dative Impoverishment precedes Agree-Copy, the latter copies
feature values from a dative-turned-absolutive clitic (as well as from the absolutive
53 See Sect. 5.5 for related discussion with respect to Ergative Metathesis and Doubling.
argument). Thus, this Impoverishment rule results in T surfacing with -features

agreeing with both absolutive and dative arguments.54
On the other hand, Dative Doubling in Oati is due to a rule triggered by
T-Noninitiality in the Linear Operations component. As shown in the previous
subsection, the fact that the surface effect is the appearance of two copies of the
dative clitic follows from the Generalized Reduplication formalism assumed here
for linear rules. Furthermore, like other rules of its kind, Dative Doubling has no
effect on agreement, since it applies in a module that follows all agreement-related
operations such as Agree-Copy and complementizer agreement. In fact, since linear
operations do not have an effect on the feature makeup of morphemes, they cannot as
a matter of principle have an effect on feature-related phenomena such as agreement.
To summarize, First Dative Impoverishment and Dative Doubling are processes
of a very different nature. Under the theory defended in this book, they have sets of
properties that are only partially overlapping:
(160) Similarities and differences between First Dative Impoverishment and
Dative Doubling
a. Both result in a proclitic doubling a dative argument.
b. Dative Doubling results in two copies of the clitic, and First Dative
Impoverishment in a single copy.
c. First Dative Impoverishment results in surface agreement with the
dative argument, and Dative Doubling does not.
Importantly, the differences between the two phenomena are principled under
this analysis, since they follow from the general architecture of the grammar
adopted here. Our split analysis of dative displacement thus predicts the following
correlation:
(161) A typology of dative displacement (DD) in Basque
If DD in a given dialect is visible as two clitics crossreferencing the dative
argument, the latter does not trigger agreement with T and C. If only
a single (displaced) clitic crossreferences the dative argument, the latter
may or may not trigger agreement with T and C.
Since doubling can only be the result of a rule applying in the Linear Operations
component, it cannot have an effect on agreement. On the other hand, simple
displacement can be the result of either Impoverishment or Metathesis (a linear
operation), and can thus be optionally correlated with dative agreement.
Both types of phenomena are treated in a unified way in Fernndez (2001);
Fernndez and Ezeizabarrena (2003) and Rezac (2008a,b). We review here the
54 As shown in Sect. 3.4.4 in Chap. 3, multiple agreement does not result in two separate exponents
realizing the two separate -feature bundles in T. Rather, vocabulary entries specified for the
two bundles compete for insertion in T. As a consequence, the exponent of T reflects absolutive
agreement in some cases, dative agreement in others, and even both in yet others, as in (156).
analysis in Rezac (2008b), which contains the most detailed account. His analysis of
dative displacement is related to his analysis of Ergative Metathesis (Rezac 2003),
reviewed in Sect. 5.5 above. In particular, Rezac assumes that v is an Agree Probe:
its person features surface as the auxiliary-initial position (our proclitic), and its
number features, in the root (our T/Agr morpheme). Thus, any auxiliary where these
positions crossreference the features of a given argument is analyzed as the result
of Agree between v and that argument. In the specific case of dative arguments, he
adopts the following structure for vP:
(162) Dative arguments in (Rezac 2008b:109)
vP
v ApplP
PP ApplP
PDat DP Appl VP
Dative arguments are PPs that have two crucial properties. First, PP is a phase,
which prevents agreement between v and the DP complement of P. This derives
the fact that, in most dialects, neither the auxiliary-initial exponent nor the root
crossreference features of the dative argument. Second, the dative P (with an
incorporated D from its complement) undergoes Head Movement/cliticization to v.
Under this analysis, Basque dative enclitics are the result of this latter process.
Dative displacement is then analyzed as mediated by agreement between the
dative P and its DP complement. This process depends on P being an Agree
Probe, which, as might be expected, is subject to dialectal variation. Although
the phasehood status of P prevents v from agreeing with DP, the head P is at
the edge of this phase, which makes it accessible to the v Probe. Thus, dative
displacement in this account is indirect agreement between v and the dative DP:
P agrees with DP, and v agrees with the P. This agreement process does not interfere
with dative cliticization, which results in the doubling pattern found in Oati. The
Lekeitio pattern, with only the auxiliary-initial exponent crossreferencing the dative
argument, is the consequence of dialect-particular constraints on the realization of
auxiliaries containing morphemes that crossreference the same -features (Rezac
2008b:9091).
It does not seem that Rezacs (2008b) analysis can derive the correlation in
(161). In terms of his analysis, this correlation can be restated as follows: if dative
displacement is visible as the dative argument being crossreferenced both by person
Agree by v (the auxiliary-initial exponent) and a dative enclitic, the dative argument
does not trigger number Agree in v (agreement in the root). Since variation between
the doubling and nondoubling patterns is due to dialect-particular restrictions on
the realization of features in the auxiliary, it is not clear how this can derive the
correlation with agreement in the root (number Agree in Rezac (2008b)).
Whether (161) is a valid generalization or not can only be confirmed by detailed
crossdialectal study of dative displacement phenomena in Basque. To the extent that
it is true, it provides an argument for the split approach defended here, and against
a unified treatment of the phenomenon. As summarized in (160), it holds in the two
dialects discussed in detail here (Lekeitio and Oati), and this should be seen as
initial evidence for our analysis. An interesting Biscayan dialect in this respect is
Basauri, which has both types of displacement55:
(163) Basauri: displacement of first person dative in the context of third plural
absolutive and third singular ergative (Rezac 2008a:711, 713714)
a. Dative Doubling in first singular
n -o -t -0/ -s (>nostes)
CL. D.1. SG - PRS .3. PL - CL. D.1. SG - CL . E .3. SG -3. PL
b. Dative Impoverishment in first plural
g -atu -0/ -s
CL. A .1. PL - PRS .1. PL - CL . E .3. SG -1. PL /3. PL
First singular dative forms such as (163a) trigger Dative Doubling, and, as in Oati,
T and C do not agree with the dative argument. On the other hand, the first plural
dative undergoes Impoverishment, with a single postsyntactically absolutive clitic
crossreferencing the dative argument. As in Lekeitio, T and C agree with the dative
argument (as well as the absolutive) in this case. Thus, the expected correlation holds
within a single dialect that has both types of displacement. Stronger confirmation of
the generalization awaits further research into this phenomenon in other dialects, but
the three varieties discussed here are very suggestive of its validity in the Biscayan
dialect group.
5.6.3 Allocutive Metathesis and Doubling
We have thus far observed that, while subject to dialectal variation, both ergative and
dative clitics can supply an auxiliary-initial exponent as part of repair rules triggered
by T-Noninitiality in auxiliaries without absolutive clitics. In this subsection, we
discuss satisfaction of Nonitiality by a fourth type of clitic in Basque auxiliaries:
allocutives (Sect. 1.4.5 in Chap. 1). Although not widespread in Biscayan (due in
55 The data in Rezac (2008a) on this dialect are from Arretxe (1994), which, unfortunately, we could
not obtain access to. Both types of dative displacement are also found in the Labourdin varieties of
Ahetze (De Yrizar 1997:118131; Rezac 2008a:712) and Sara (De Yrizar 1997:5880; Fernndez
and Ezeizabarrena 2003). The morphophonology of T agreement in Ahetze and Sara seems quite
distinct from Biscayan, and it is thus not clear to us at this point whether our correlation holds in
these varieties or not.
part to the loss of colloquial forms and concomitant loss of allocutives), both
Metathesis and Doubling of allocutive clitics are attested in a few Biscayan
varieties, and also in Guipuscoan and Labourdin. We provide evidence that this
is the correct interpretation of the displacement facts in these varieties, despite
claims to the contrary in Lafon (1955), Rebuschi (1984) and Rezac (2006). The
existence of Metathesis/Doubling of allocutive clitics provides further evidence for
our arguments that morpheme displacement phenomena in Basque are postsyntactic,
and that processes in the Linear Operations component are triggered by general
constraints, but implemented with specific rules.
Before we turn to cases of allocutive Metathesis, some background on the syntax
and morphology of allocutive clitics is in order. Compare the following synonymous
sentences in Zamudio56:
(164) Allocutive auxiliaries
a. Nonallocutive
Yoa-ngo n -as.
go-FUT CL.A.1.SG -PRS.1.SG
b. Allocutive, male addressee
Yoa-ngo n -o -k.
go-FUT CL.A.1.SG -PRS.1.SG -CL.ALLOC.2.SG.COLL.M
The difference between the auxiliaries in the two sentences is in the presence of an
allocutive clitic in (164b), which signals that the sentence is addressed to a close
male friend or relation of the speaker (as opposed to (164a), which is used in more
formal contexts, or when addressing more than one person).57 Allocutivity in finite
verbs is marked by a clitic agreeing in -features with the addressee. If the latter is
male, the clitic is realized as -k, as in (164b); if female, it is -na58:
(165) Allocutive auxiliary, female addressee
Ixi-i ori-0/ ate-ori-0,
/ otzi-tu i-ngo
leave-NF that-ABS door-that-ABS get.cold-NF do-FUT
56 Although allocutive forms are not in current use in any of the three dialects discussed in detail
in this book, Gaminde (2000:382385) contains a relatively full paradigm, collected from older
speakers from Zamudio. Most Zamudio examples in this subsection are full sentences, but we
have not found full sentence examples for some relevant cases, for which we can only provide the
auxiliary form here.
57 A similar phenomenon is found with Galician solidarity clitics, corresponding to non-
argumental second persons (Huidobro 2009).

58 When nonfinal in the auxiliary, allomorph -a is used with male addressees. The form of this clitic
is subject to some dialectal variation; for instance, the feminine clitic has two allomorphs in many
non-Biscayan dialects: -n word-finally and -na elsewhere.
g -o -s -na (>gosena) ta.

CL . A .1. PL - PRS .1. PL
-1.PL -CL.ALLOC.2.SG.COLL.F and
Leave that door, or were going to get cold.
The form of allocutive clitics is the same as argumental (nonallocutive) clitics,
which in enclitic position also make a distinction between masculine and feminine
in the singular in colloquial registers. This gender contrast is absent in colloquial
clitics that surface in proclitic position (see below for relevant auxiliary forms).
An important feature of allocutivity is that it is obligatory. That is, allocutive
forms must be used in contexts where the addressee is addressed with second person
colloquial forms. For instance, although (164a) and (164b) are truth-conditionally
identical, they are not interchangeable. If addressing a close male friend, (164b)
must be used instead of (164a). This can be seen more clearly in examples such
as the following, where other parts of the sentence signal the social status of the
addressee with respect to the speaker:
(166) Allocutive marking is obligatory
a. *Hi-rekin etorr-i n -aiz.
you(Sg, Coll)-COM come-PRF CL.A.1.SG -PRS.1.SG
I have come with you(Sg, colloquial).
(Batua, Alberdi 1995:277)
b. Hi-rekin etorr-i
you(Sg, Coll)-COM come-PRF
n -au -k.
CL . A .1. SG - PRS .1. SG - CL. ALLOC .2. SG . COLL. M
I have come with you(Sg, colloquial, male).
(Batua, Alberdi 1995:277)
The colloquial comitative form hirekin in these examples signals that the sentence
is addressed to a close friend. Accordingly, the absence of an allocutive clitic in
the auxiliary makes (166a) ungrammatical. The auxiliary must include an allocutive
clitic, which can be masculine, as in (166b), or feminine.59
Oyharabal (1993) provides arguments that, unlike other clitics, allocutives are
not generated in argumental positions. First, unlike their argumental counterparts,
they cannot double an overt (pronominal) DP:
(167) Allocutive clitics cannot double overt pronouns
a. Hi-k lan-0/ egi-n d -u -k.
you(Sg, Coll)-ERG work-ABS do-PRF L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.2.SG.M
You(Sg, colloquial, male) worked. (Batua, Oyharabal 1993:104)
59 Note that the contrast in (166) is not due to agreement between hirekin and the allocutive clitic,
since comitatives do not trigger cliticization in Basque.

b. (*Hi-0/k/ri)
/ mintza
you(Sg, Coll)-ABS/ERG/DAT talk
n -ia -iteke -k.
CL . A .1. SG - PRS .1. SG -can - CL . ALLOC.2. SG . M
I can speak. (Batua, Oyharabal 1993:104)
The second singular ergative clitic -k in (167a) doubles an overt pronominal DP.
However, this is not possible for its homophonous allocutive counterpart in (167b),
regardless of the case of the pronoun. Furthermore, allocutive clitics cannot bind
reflexives:
(168) Allocutive clitics and binding
a. Hi-re buru-arekin mintza-tzen
your(Sg, Coll)-GEN head-COM.SG talk-IMP
h -aiz.
CL . A .2. SG . COLL - PRS .2. SG . COLL
You speak with yourself. (Batua, Oyharabal 1993:103)
b. *Hi-re buru-arekin mintza-tzen
your(Sg, Coll)-GEN head-COM.SG talk-IMP
n -au -k.
CL . A .1. SG - PRS .1. SG - CL . ALLOC.2. SG . COLL . M
I speak with yourself(Coll). (Batua, Oyharabal 1993:103)
The absolutive clitic h- (or its doubled pro argument) binds the reflexive in (168a).
This is not possible for its allocutive counterpart -k in (168b).
To summarize so far, unlike other pronominal clitics, allocutives are not gener-
ated in argument positions. Adapting ideas from Oyharabal (1993), we assume that
the allocutive clitic is generated adjoined to a Speech Act Phrase (SAP) below CP,
which accounts for its nonargumental status60 :
(169) SAP and allocutive clitics
CP
SAP C
TP SA
vP T ClAlloc SA
60 In a previous version of this book, we followed Oyharabals (1993) account more closely by
assuming that the allocutive clitic adjoins to C. However, this conflicts with our proposal that a
head (such as C) can only host one clitic in Basque (Sect. 2.3 in Chap. 2). We thank an anonymous
reviewer for pointing this out.
This proposal is inspired by several works that relate specific behavior of second
(and first) person elements (such as in vocatives and imperatives) to functional
projections above TP, including Hill (2007), Zanuttini (2008), Baker (2008),
Miyagawa (2010), and references cited there. In sentences with a SAP and an
allocutive clitic, T moves to this functional head on its way to C. For instance,
the structure of the auxiliary in Zamudio (164b) in the syntactic component is the
following61:
(170) Auxiliaries with allocutive clitics
C
SA C
T SA
ClAbs T ClAlloc SA
Since the allocutive clitic does not double an argument, it does not have case
in the syntax. Following Albizu (2002), we assume that argumental clitics are
[+argumental], while allocutives are [argumental].
Directly relevant to the question of Metathesis of allocutive clitics is that,
although syntactically caseless, these clitics seem to acquire case features in the
postsyntactic component, since they always surface in ergative or dative form.
Consider the following allocutive example:
(171) Allocutive auxiliary, male addressee
Yeus-i d -o -k!
fall-PRF L -PRS.3.SG -CL.ALLOC.2.SG.COLL.M
Its fallen! (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:154)
This contrasts in two different ways from its nonallocutive counterpart in the
following sentence:
(172) Nonallocutive auxiliary
Amar metro-tik yeus-i d -a. (>de)
ten meter-ABL fall-PRF L -PRS.3.SG
Hes fallen from a height of ten meters. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:299)
First, allocutive (171) contains the second person enclitic -k. Second, even though
the roots are identical in both examples in terms of tense (present) and agreement
features (third singular), their surface forms are different: -o- in the allocutive
61 Attachment to SA accounts for the fact that allocutive clitics always follow T (with the exception
of allocutives subject to Metathesis discussed below). Their position relative to other morphemes
in the auxiliary follows complex patterns subject to dialectal variation that are not clear to us at
this point. We leave this as a matter in need of further study.
auxiliary (171) and -a- in its nonallocutive counterpart (172). As shown in Sect. 3.4
in Chap. 3, -a- is an intransitive T exponent (as expected for (172)), but -o- in the
allocutive auxiliary is transitive, that is, the former is specified as [have], and
the latter as [+have]. As noted in Sect. 3.4.1 in Chap. 3, this is an indication that
the allocutive clitic in this type of example has ergative case features.62 This is
evinced by the fact that the root in allocutive (172) is identical to a nonallocutive
monotransitive verb crossreferencing an absolutive argument with the same features
as (171), alongside a second colloquial ergative argument:
(173) Nonallocutive auxiliary with a second colloquial ergative clitic
Se-0/ i-n d -o -k?
what-ABS do-PRF L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.2.SG.COLL.M
What have you(Sg, Coll) done? (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:174)
Thus, the allocutive clitic in the intransitive auxiliary in (171) patterns as an
ergative clitic, both in its surface form (identical to the ergative clitic in (173)),
and in the allomorphy it triggers in the root. We implement this observation by
adopting the following redundancy rule, which applies in the Exponence Conversion
component63:
(174) Allocutive Case Redundancy Rule
[argumental] [+motion, peripheral]
As a consequence of this rule, the allocutive clitic is realized with an ergative enclitic
exponent, and Have-Insertion inserts [+have] in T, which accounts for all the facts
noted above.64
62 In the presence of an argumental dative or ergative clitic, the allocutive surfaces as dative instead
of ergative (Albizu 2002:1011), as in the following applicative intransitive:
(i) y -a -t -k (>yatek)
L -PRS.3. SG -CL. D .1. SG -CL. ALLOC .2. SG . COLL. M
Although this allocutive clitic is identical in form to postsyntatically ergative -k in nonapplicative

intransitives like (171), the fact that the root surfaces in intransitive form -a- (as opposed to
transitive -o- in (171)) is evidence that the allocutive enclitic has dative, not ergative, features.
The exact distribution of postsyntactically acquired case features in allocutives is subject to
some variation, but there is no variation in the nonapplicative intransitives discussed in the text,
where allocutives have ergative case featuresand therefore trigger insertion of transitive root
exponentsin all dialects.
63 This does not factor in the complexities mentioned in Footnote 62 above. For Zamudio, the
facts can be accounted for by a more complex rule that supplies the allocutive clitic with dative
case features in the context of a [+motion] (dative or ergative) clitic, and with ergative features
elsewhere.
64 Other morphophonological effects of allocutive clitics not discussed here include palatalization
and special allomorphy in other morphemes. Palatalization can be observed in auxiliaries in which
the allocutive clitic surfaces as dative, such as (i) in Footnote 62, where the L-morpheme surfaces
as palatal y instead of the dental d in its nonallocutive counterpart (Table A.2 in Appendix A).
Given their postsyntactic ergative-like properties, we might expect allocutive

clitics to undergo Ergative Metathesis (or Doubling) in the postsyntactic component.
However, this is not the case in many Basque dialects, including Zamudio. The
allocutive clitic in the past tense counterpart of (171) surfaces in enclitic position:
(175) Nonallocutive form, past tense (Zamudio)
s -a -n
L - PST.3. SG - CPST
(176) Allocutive enclitic in the past tense, male addressee (Zamudio, Gaminde
2000:382)
s -o -a -n
L - PST.3. SG - CL. ALLOC .2. SG . COLL. M - CPST
(177) Allocutive enclitic in the past tense, female addressee (Zamudio,
Gaminde 2000:382)
s -o -na -0/
L - PST.3. SG - CL. ALLOC .2. SG . COLL. F - CPST
This contrasts with the past tense counterpart of nonallocutive monotransitive (173),
where, as expected, the ergative clitic surfaces in proclitic position due to Ergative
Metathesis:
(178) Metathesized ergative colloquial clitic, male and female addressee
g -endu -n
CL. E.2. SG . COLL - PST.3. SG - CPST
The absence of Ergative Metathesis in past allocutive (176) and (177) can be seen
both in terms of the surface position of the clitic, as well as in the concomitant
preservation of the gender contrast. The latter is only present in colloquial enclitics,
and it is neutralized in proclitic position, as in (178).
Adopting ideas from Albizu (2002:1317), we implement this observation by
adding a further restriction to the structural description of Ergative Metathesis65 :
(179) Dialectal variant I of the structural description of Ergative Metathesis
[T0max TPast X Cl,
where Cl is a clitic specified as [+argumental, peripheral, +motion]
In Zamudio, the L-morpheme is palatalized whenever present, and so is the third person dative
clitic allomorph -tz (>tx). In auxiliaries without these morphemes, palatalization applies to the
rightmost coronal preceding the allocutive clitic (see Gaminde (2000:383384) for relevant forms).
An example of allomorphy triggered by an allocutive morpheme in Zamudio is (177) below, where
the past tense complementizer surfaces as -0,/ instead of usual -n (cf. (175) and (176)). See Albizu
(2002:1011) for discussion of related facts in Batua.
65 (179) abstracts away from dialect-particular restrictions discussed in Sect. 5.4.1.
Although this restriction on Ergative Metathesis is characteristic of many Basque

dialects (including Batua and most of Biscayan), several others do not have it. In
these dialects, the structural description of Ergative Metathesis is the following:
(180) Dialectal variant II of the structural description of Ergative Metathesis
[T0max TPast X Cl,
where Cl is a clitic specified as [peripheral, +motion]
Consider, for instance, the counterpart of Zamudio (176)(177) in Getaria Basque
(Labourdin dialect)66 :
(181) Metathesized allocutive in Getaria, male or female addressee (De Yrizar
1997:343)
h -u -n (>huen)
CL. ALLOC .2. COLL. SG - PST.3. SG - CPST
The allocutive clitic in this auxiliary undergoes Ergative Metathesis, just like its
ergative counterpart in the following nonallocutive transitive auxiliary:
(182) Metathesized colloquial ergative in Getaria, male or female addressee
(De Yrizar 1997:347)
h -u -n (>huen)
CL. E.2. COLL. SG - PST.3. SG - CPST
As expected in forms with Ergative Metathesis of a colloquial clitic, both the

allocutive and the ergative clitic in (181) and (182) are realized as gender-neutral h-.
Note that the realization of the colloquial proclitic is subject to dialectal variation: h-
in dialects that preserve etymological [h] (including Labourdin), and 0- / in dialects
where this sound has disappeared (including Biscayan and Guipuscoan).67
A further prediction of the analysis is that there should be dialects in which
allocutive clitics undergo Ergative Doubling. This is in fact the norm in the
Guipuscoan dialect.68 The following examples from the variety of Zumaia illustrate
this.69 First, unlike ergative clitics with other -features, colloquial ergative clitics
undergo Doubling:
66 Unfortunately, we have not found any source with relevant full sentence examples to illustrate
Metathesis in Getaria, and only provide auxiliary forms here. De Yrizar (1997:343) also reports
idiolectal variants of the auxiliary in (181) that do not undergo Ergative Metathesis.
67 See below for relevant forms from a Guipuscoan variety. In a few Western Biscayan varieties,
including Zamudio (178), the colloquial proclitic exponent is g-. On variation in the pronunciation
of etymological [h] in Basque, see Trask (1997:84, 157163).
68 Ereo, a Biscayan variety, also doubles allocutive clitics. See de Yrizar (1992b:Vol. 1, 513, 517)
for relevant auxiliary forms.

69 We would like to thank Xabier Azkue Ibarbia for his help in obtaining the data from Zumaia.
(183) Ergative Metathesis in Zumaia

Ezau-tuko z -endu -n (>tzendun) zu-k.
know-FUT CL.E.2.SG -PST.3.SG -PST you(Sg)-ERG
You(Sg) probably knew him. (Zumaia, Azkue Ibarbia 2000:91)
(184) Doubling of colloquial ergative in Zumaia
a. Male addressee
I-k eska-tzen
you(Sg, Coll)-ERG ask-IMP
0/ -u -a -n
CL. E.2. SG . COLL - PST.3. SG - CL. E.2. SG . COLL. M - CPST
prend-a.
garment-ABS.SG
You(Sg) used to ask for a garment.
(Zumaia, Azkue Ibarbia 2000:87)
b. Female addressee
Aurrezku earr-ak i-ten
aurrezku beautiful-ABS.PL do-IMP
0/ -itu -na -n. (>ittunan)
CL. E.2. SG . COLL - PST.3. PL - CL. E.2. SG . COLL. F - CPST
You(Sg) used to dance beautiful aurrezkus.
Accordingly, allocutive clitics also undergo Doubling:
(185) Doubling of allocutive clitic in Zumaia
a. Male addressee
Ainbeste-0/ etor-tzen
so.many-ABS come-IMP
0/ -itu -a -n.
CL. ALLOC .2. SG . COLL - PST.3. PL - CL. ALLOC .2. SG . COLL. M - CPST
(>itxuan)
So many used to come. (Zumaia, Azkue Ibarbia 2000:91)
b. Female addressee
Jaidxero etor-tzen
every.holiday come-IMP
0/ -itu -na -n.
CL. ALLOC .2. SG . COLL - PST.3. PL - CL. ALLOC .2. SG . COLL. F - CPST
(>itxunan) bi andre-0. /
two woman.ABS
Two women used to come every holiday.
Note that the neutralization of the gender contrast in the proclitic copy, as well
as the presence of the contrast in the enclitic copy, are as expected: the colloquial
enclitic exponents -a/-na (and their allomorphs) are specified for gender, but its
proclitic counterpart 0-
/ (and its dialectal variants h- and g-) is not. Thus, Zumaia
has a specific Ergative Doubling rule that applies only to colloquial ergative clitics,
including allocutives, and a more general one that applies to other ergative clitics
(on competition between Ergative Doubling and Metathesis, see Sect. 5.4.2 above).
The Guipuscoan doubling pattern has, in our view, misled some authors to
an analysis in which it does not involve Ergative Doubling (or Metathesis). In
particular, Lafon (1955:151) proposes the following parse for forms like those in
(185):
(186) a. Alternative parse for (185a):
0/ -itu -a -n
L - PST.3. PL - CL. ALLOC .2. SG . COLL. M - CPST
b. Alternative parse for (185b):
0/ -itu -na -n
L - PST.3. PL - CL. ALLOC .2. SG . COLL. F - CPST
According to this view, the presence of gender-contrasting enclitic -a/na signals the
absence of Metathesis to auxiliary-initial position. The auxiliary-initial exponent
/ is thus taken to be the realization of the L-morpheme.70 The result is a dialectal
0-
picture of allocutive clitics in Basque in which, contrary to our proposal, these clitics
do not undergo Ergative Doubling or Metathesis in any dialect. Similar proposals are
made in Rebuschi (1984:592595) and Rezac (2006:Chap. 2).
There are two arguments against this view and in favor of our claim that
allocutive clitics do participate in Ergative Metathesis/Doubling in some dialects.
First, as acknowledged by Lafon, the parse in (186) for the allocutive auxiliaries
in (185) makes these forms quite exceptional. Although the default exponent 0- / for
the auxiliary-initial position is the norm in past tense monotransitives in Biscayan
(Sect. 5.4.3 above), this is not the case in Guipuscoan (or any other dialect):
(187) The realization of the auxiliary-initial position in past tense monotransi-
tives
a. Biscayan 0- /
Ar-ek euk-i 0/ -eu -e -n (>euren)
those-ERG have-PRF CL.E.3 -PST.3.SG -CL.E.PL -CPST
orixe-0.
/
that-ABS
They had that. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:58)
b. Guipuscoan z-
Pajaro earr-ak erte-ntzen
bird beautiful-ERG.PL come.out-IMP
70 Infact, Lafon takes 0-

/ to be the realization of a third person absolutive marker. For the purposes
of the discussion here, this is equivalent to the L-morpheme in our analysis, as reflected in the text.
z -u -e -n
(>tzuen) Loiola biri-an da.
CL . E .3 - PST.3. SG - CL . E . PL - CPST Loyola road-IN.SG and
Beautiful birds used to come out on the Loyola road.
On the other hand, the Doubling parse proposed here for allocutive auxiliaries like
(185) explains why the auxiliary-initial position is 0-,
/ since this is the expected
realization of a colloquial clitic preceding T. The fact that the allocutive is also
present in enclitic position does not weaken our claim: this simply indicates that
these forms undergo Ergative Doubling, not Metathesis.
Another argument for the claim that allocutives undergo Ergative Metathe-
sis/Doubling in some dialects comes from the Metathesis pattern found in some
Labourdin varieties, discussed above. The following is a relevant example, repeated
from (181):
(188) Metathesized allocutive in Getaria, male or female addressee (De Yrizar
1997:343)
h -u -n (>huen)
CL. ALLOC .2. SG - PST.3. SG - CPST
That this form involves Ergative Metathesis of an allocutive clitic is clear. First, it
lacks the gender-contrasting enclitics -a/na.71 Second, the auxiliary-initial position
is gender-neutral h-, an unmistakeable exponent of proclitic colloquial morphemes
in dialects that preserve etymological [h]. In particular, h- cannot be interpreted
as the realization of an L-morpheme. As in Guipuscoan (see discussion above
(187)), the default auxiliary-initial exponent in Labourdin is z- in the past tense
(see De Yrizar (1997:343349) for relevant Getaria forms).
In conclusion, like other pronominal clitics, allocutive clitics in several Basque
dialects can undergo Metathesis or Doubling in order to satisfy T-Noninitiality. The
facts provide additional arguments for the general approach adopted here. First,
both Metathesis and Doubling are expected under the Generalized Reduplication
approach to postsyntactic morpheme displacement. Second, the neutralization of
gender contrasts in metathesized allocutives is as predicted by the hypothesis that
Metathesis/Doubling apply in the Linear Operations module prior to Vocabulary In-
sertion. Third, variation in Metathesis of allocutives, which ranges from dialects that
do not have it to dialects that effect Doubling, is expected in the approach defended
here in terms of general constraints such as T-Noninitiality and rules triggered by
them. Last, but not least, the fact that metathesized allocutives are in auxiliary-initial
position due to the same rules that displace ergative clitics provides evidence for
the hypothesis that Ergative Metathesis and related operations are postsyntactic.
Ergative and allocutive clitics have very different syntactic derivations, and are thus
not expected to behave uniformly in the syntactic component. On the other hand,
71 Note that the presence of an allocutive clitic is obligatory whenever possible (see above), so the
absence of -a/na cannot be attributed to optionality in allocutive marking.

their postsyntactic ergative-like behavior, as diagnosed by allomorphy they trigger

in the root, combined with a postsyntactic treatment of Ergative Metathesis and
Doubling, correctly predicts that there are varieties in which allocutives undergo
these operations.
5.7 Linearization and Hierarchical Relations
In this section, we discuss the role of hierarchical relations in the Linear Operations
component. We begin in Sect. 5.7.1 by making explicit a model of this component
in which its output encodes both precedence and hierachical relations, and discuss
the implications of this model for the set of linear rules and constraints we propose
for Basque in this chapter, concentrating on two specific claims: (1) constraints on
linear order make reference to hierarchical relations, and (2) rules of Metathesis and
Doubling have an effect on hierarchical structure, apart from their obvious effect on
linear order. In Sects. 5.7.2 and 5.7.3, we provide evidence for these claims from
Root Reduplication, a Generalized Reduplication process that is responsible for the
appearance of multiple copies of the root in some Ondarru auxiliaries, and from
auxiliaries with modal particles.
5.7.1 Hierachical Relations in the Linear

Operations Component
In previous sections, we propose a number of Linearization rules, triggering and

blocking constraints, as well as Metathesis and Doubling rules responsible for the
linear order of morphemes in Basque finite verbs. These phenomena, we argue,
apply before Vocabulary Insertion, and their main role in the grammar is to establish
precedence relations in abstract syntactic structures. As discussed in Sect. 5.1, we do
not view Linearization as effecting a conversion from abstract structures encoding
hierarchical relations to strings that only encode precedence relations. Rather, this
component adds information: it defines a set of precedence relations in terms of a
set of hierarchical relations, but the latter are kept intact. Consider, for instance, an
auxiliary with an ergative clitic and no other clitic:
(189) Output of Linearization
C
T C
ClErg C
Agr C
5.7 Linearization and Hierarchical Relations 323
Strictly speaking, this is the structure that is the output of Linearization, since it
encodes both types of relations. The structure that is the input to Linearization can
be represented as follows, where the pair C = X,Y is a constituent with daughters
X and Y and where X is the head of C:
(190) Hierarchical relations in (189)
C, Agr , ClErg , T
The Linearization algorithm adds precedence relations that result in the tree in (189),
which therefore encodes both the hierachical relations in (190) and the precedence
relations represented in the following sequence:
(191) Linear sequence encoded in (189)
T ClErg Agr C
Crucially, all the information encoded in both (190) and (191) is part of the
representation of the auxiliary in the output of Linearization, whose complete
representation (abstracting away from noncategorial features) is (189).
The preservation of hierarchical relations at Linearization is evinced by the fact
that the phonological component (or the mapping from morphology to phonology)
needs this information. For instance, word-internal hierarchical structure is nec-
essary for the application of cyclic rules (see, among others, Chomsky and Halle
(1968); Halle and Vergnaud (1987)). Similarly, above the word, stress assignment
also makes crucial reference to syntactic structure (i.a. Cinque 1993; Zubizarreta
1998; Arregi 2002), if only in the mapping to prosodic structure at the phrasal level
(i.a. Selkirk 1986).
The idea that the output of Linearization preserves hierarchical relations also has
consequences for the constraints and Generalized Reduplication rules proposed in
this chapter. With respect to constraints, we propose the following hypothesis:
(192) Domain conditions in linear constraints
Hierarchical relations play a role in linear constraints in that the former
establish the domains in which the latter apply.
In particular, linear constraints that regulate the distance of some terminal element
from some edge are subject to the following condition:
(193) Domain Condition on Edge Constraints
In a constraint on the distance of some node N from the edge of some
domain D, D must be a projection of N.
Consider, for instance, the application of L-Support and Ergative Metathesis and
Doubling to auxiliaries of the form in (189). These processes insert a morpheme,
which can be epenthetic or a copy of the ergative clitic, to the left of T, altering
precedence relations in the obvious way:
(194) X T (ClErg ) Agr C
These rules are triggered by T-Noninitiality, which prevents T from surfacing in

initial position within some word-internal domain. Specifically, we have assumed
throughout this chapter that this domain is the 0-level maximal projection of T:
The terminal T cannot be leftmost within T0max .
The effect of T-Noninitiality then is to ban finite auxiliaries where no node precedes
T within maximal 0-level projection. Thus, it applies to (189) by triggering the
application of some epenthetic or Generalized Reduplication rule. For instance,
L-Support and Ergative Doubling have the following effect on the structure:
(196) Output of L-Support
C C
T C T C
ClErg C L T
ClErg C
Agr C Agr C
(197) Output of Ergative Doubling
C C
T C T C
ClErg C ClErg T
ClErg C
Agr C Agr C
In the output of both rules, T satisfies T-Noninitiality because a node is adjoined to
its left. Although all the data discussed so far are compatible with a statement of
T-Noninitiality based on some other word-internal domain (e.g. the M-word), we
provide evidence in Sect. 5.7.3 that the relevant domain is indeed T0max .
Implicit in these structures is the application of the following condition on the
effect that Generalized Reduplication rules have on hierarchical relations:
(198) Minimal Structural Change
Application of a linear rule R alters hierarchical relations in order to
minimally satisfy all blocking constraints and the constraint that triggers
R, if any.
Since T-Noninitiality requires T to be noninitial within T0max , the rules effect a
minimal change to the structure by adjoining L or ClErg to T.
Ergative Metathesis is somewhat more complex, since it also results in deletion

of the original copy of the ergative clitic adjoined to C. We assume that it has the
following effect on the output:
(199) Output of Ergative Metathesis
C C
T C T C
ClErg C ClErg T
Agr C
Agr C
That is, the C node dominating the original copy of the clitic (marked as C above
for expository purposes) is deleted.72
Another constraint discussed in previous sections is T-Peninitiality which, among
other things, prevents the existence of a rule doubling an absolutive plural clitic in a
position following T (Sect. 5.3.2):
(200) Ungrammatical output of Plural Absolutive Doubling
C C
T C T C
Cl T Agr C Cl T ClPl C
ClAbs ClPl ClAbs ClPl
Agr C
As in T-Noninitiality, the domain relevant for T-Peninitiality is the maximal 0-level
projection of T:
Only one morpheme may precede terminal T within T0max .
The constraint bans structures where a complex (nonterminal) node is adjoined to T
(and also those with more than one terminal adjoined to T). Thus, the output of
Doubling in (200) violates T-Peninitiality because, by preserving the original copy
of the plural clitic, more than one node precedes T within T0max . Compare this to
the output of Local Plural Metathesis:
72 We are not aware of any empirical advantage of making this representational choice over one
where C is preserved in the output. We keep to the simpler representation in (199) mainly for
expository purposes.
(202) Grammatical output of Local Plural Metathesis

C C
T C T C
Cl T ClAbs T
Agr C ClPl C
ClAbs ClPl
Agr C
Deletion of the original copy of the plural clitic results in a structure where only the
absolutive clitic precedes T within its maximal 0-projection.73
To summarize so far, hierarchical relations are taken into account in the
Linear Operations component in two different ways. First, constraints such as T-
Noninitiality and T-Peninitiality are stated with respect to certain hierarchically
defined domains. Specifically, they regulate the distance of some terminal from the
left or right edge of one of its projections (Domain Condition on Edge Constraints).
Second, the output of rules is constrained by conditions on their effects on
hierachical structure (Minimal Structural Change). In the following subsection, we
discuss the rule of Root Reduplication in Ondarru, which provides evidence for both
hypotheses. Specifically, taking into account hierarchical relations in both stating T-
Peninitiality and in representing the output of the rule allows one to understand
how the latter obeys general conditions imposed on the order of morphemes in
Basque auxiliaries, and thus provides a better understanding of this component of
the grammar. Further support for these claims comes from the interaction of modal
particles with T-Noninitiality, discussed in Sect. 5.7.3.
5.7.2 Root Reduplication in Ondarru
The following auxiliaries illustrate Root Reduplication in Ondarru74:
73 In the output of (202), the metathesized plural clitic is adjoined to C. A structure where it
is adjoined to T would also work. We are not aware of any testable prediction that hinges on
this. More generally, the outputs of Metathesis and Doubling rules operating on plural clitics are
constrained by Person-Number Order, and it is not clear to us to what extent the effect of these
rules on hierarchical relations makes predictions as to possible rules. We leave this as a matter for
future research.
74 Only some speakers of Ondarru accept forms with Root Reduplication. Some of our informants
reject them entirely, and instead use forms without any Metathesis or Doubling of any kind. Forms
with Root Reduplication are also absent in de Yrizar (1992b:213232) and Gaminde (1984:Vol. 3,
523527) (in the last case, trivially, since past tense ditransitive auxiliaries with the relevant
combination of clitics are altogether absent in this work).
(203) Root Reduplication

a. Su-k ni-ri liburo bat-0/ emo-0/
you(Sg)-ERG me-DAT book a-ABS give-PRF
d -o -t -s -endu -n. (>stasendun)
L - PST.3. SG - CL . D .1. SG - CL . E .2. SG - PST.3. SG - CPST
You(Sg) gave me a book. (Ondarru)
b. Sue-k ni-ri liburo bat-0/ emo-0/
you(Pl)-ERG me-DAT book a-ABS give-PRF
d -o -t -s -endu -e -n.
L - PST.3. SG - CL . D .1. SG - CL . E .2 - PST.3. SG - CL . E . PL - CPST
(>stasenduen)
You(Pl) gave me a book. (Ondarru)
This phenomenon is restricted to past tense auxiliaries with a second person ergative
clitic and a first person dative clitic. Unlike other auxiliaries, T (the root) surfaces
with two copies: one (-o-) in its usual second position, and another one (-endu-)
right adjacent to the ergative clitic. If, as in (203b), the ergative clitic is fissioned,
the rightmost copy of the root is placed between the person clitic s- and the number
clitic -e. Three other features of these auxiliaries must be taken into account. First,
the leftmost copy of the root is shielded from initial position by the L-morpheme d-.
Second, the two copies of the root are realized with very different exponents, -o- and
-endu-. Third, even though these auxiliaries are apparently not subject to Ergative
Metathesis (Sect. 5.4.1 above), the ergative clitic surfaces in proclitic form s-.
The fact that these sentences contain two separate auxiliary roots raises the
question whether the correct analysis is one where they involve two separate
auxiliary words.75 Under this analysis, the auxiliary material in (203a) would be
analyzed as two separate auxiliaries: d-o-t (>(do)sta) and s-endu-n. Evidence that
this is not the case comes from word order facts that show that the auxiliary material
in these sentences forms a single auxiliary word. In affirmative sentences without
modal particles, the finite auxiliary in Basque must be immediately preceded by the
main verb, as illustrated by the present tense counterpart of (203a):
(204) Participle-auxiliary order
a. Su-k ni-ri liburo bat-0/ emo-0/
d -o -t -su. (>stasu)
L - PST.3. SG - CL . D .1. SG - CL . E .2. SG
You(Sg) have given me a book. (Ondarru)
b. *Suk niri liburo bat dostasu emon.
c. *Suk niri emon liburo bat dostasu.
75 This could involve generating two separate auxiliaries in the syntactic component, or a single
syntactic auxiliary split into two separate words postsyntactically.

The auxiliary material in (203) behaves as a single auxiliary word with respect to
this: any order in which the main verb does not immediately precede the entire
auxiliary string is ungrammatical. In sentences with a modal particle, such as
conditional ba (Subection 5.7.3 below), the latter is left-adjacent to the auxiliary:
(205) Modal particle-auxiliary order

liburu-0/ emo-ten ba d -o -t -su (>stasu)
book-ABS.SG give-IMP if L -PST.3.SG -CL.D.1.SG -CL.E.2.SG
if you give me the book (Ondarru)
In sentences with Root Reduplication, ba must immediately precede the entire

auxiliary string:
(206) Modal particle-auxiliary order and Root Reduplication

liburu-0/ emo-ngo ba
book-ABS.SG give-FUT if
d -o -t -s -endu -n (>stasendun)
if you gave me the book (Ondarru)
If the auxiliary material were divided into two separate words, we might expect ba
to immediately precede the second hypothesized auxiliary, contrary to fact:
(207) *Liburu emongo sta ba sendun.
Another element that immediately precedes the finite auxiliary is the sentential
negative marker es76 :
(208) Negation-auxiliary order
liburu-0/ emo-n es d -o -t -su -la
book-ABS.SG give-PRF not L -PST.3.SG -CL.D.1.SG -CL.E.2.SG -CDECL
(>dostasule)
that you havent given me the book (Ondarru)
76 Although the condition that es immediately precedes the auxiliary is true, word order facts in
negative sentences are more complex than suggested in this very brief description. See Etxepare
(2003a).
In cases of Root Reduplication, es precedes the entire auxiliary string:

(209) Negation-auxiliary order and Root Reduplication
a. liburu-0/ emo-n es
book-ABS.SG give-PRF not
d -o -t -s -endu -la (>dostasendule)
that you didnt give me the book (Ondarru)
b. *liburu emo sta es sendule
Thus, word order facts are only consistent with the hypothesis that the auxiliary
material in sentences with Root Reduplication forms a single auxiliary word.
In order to account for this phenomenon, we propose the following rule that
applies in the Linear Operations module:
(210) Root Reduplication (Ondarru)
a. Structural description: TPast ClDat ClErg
where ClDat is first person, and ClErg is second person.
of ClDat .
(ii) Insert to the immediate left of ClDat
The rule, which is not triggered by any constraint, has the following effect on a past
ditransitive auxiliary with the relevant clitics:
TPast ClDat ClErg
TPast ClDat TPast ClDat ClErg
TPast ClDat TPast ClErg
As can be seen in (203a), repeated here as (212), this does not derive the surface
order of morphemes:
(212) Root Reduplication
Su-k ni-ri liburo bat-0/ emo-0/
d -o -t -s -endu -n. (>stasendun)
You(Sg) gave me a book. (Ondarru)
In particular, an L-morpheme precedes the leftmost copy of T, and the ergative
clitic precedes the rightmost copy (reversing the order in the output of Root
Reduplication). As we argue below, the surface order is due to later application
of L-Support and Ergative Metathesis.
Consider the effect that Root Reduplication has on hierarchical relations:

(213) Output of Root Reduplication
C C
T C T C
T ClDat T ClDat
ClErg C T C
Agr C ClErg C
Agr C
This output satisfies T-Peninitiality. The leftmost copy of terminal T is not preceded
by any morpheme within its T0max (both in the input and output), which is also
true for the rightmost copy (in which case terminal T and T0max are the same node).
Crucial in the latter case is the Domain Condition on Edge Constraints, which entails
that the relevant domain for satisfaction of T-Peninitiality is T0max : if the domain
were, for instance, the whole auxiliary M-word, the rightmost copy would violate
the constraint, since it is preceded by two morphemes within the M-word. Root
Reduplication also trivially satisfies Person-Number Order, since it does not alter
any precedence relations between fissioned clitics.
In addition, Minimal Structure Change, which crucially refers to structural
relations, explains why the output of Root Reduplication is a single M-word. If this
condition did not hold, nothing would prevent an output with two separate M-words,
which, as shown above, is not the correct analysis of the phenomenon:
(214) Ungrammatical output of Root Reduplication
T C
T ClDat T C
ClErg C
Agr C
Thus, Root Reduplication provides evidence for the role played by hierarchical
relations in the operation of processes in the Linear Operations component.
Another crucial distinction made here is between triggering and blocking
constraints. T-Peninitiality and Person-Number Order are blocking constraints, and
must therefore both be satisfied by the output of Root Reduplication. On the

other hand, T-Noninitiality is triggering, not blocking.77 Like other Generalized
Reduplication rules discussed in Sect. 5.3, Root Reduplication is not triggered
by T-Noninitiality or any other constraint (even though it applies to T-initial
auxiliaries). The fact that the output violates T-Noninitiality with respect to both
copies of T (both are initial within their respective T0max ) does not result in blocking,
since this constraint is not of this type. On the other hand, as a triggering constraint,
T-Noninitiality does force later application of repair operations on both copies:
Root Reduplication
Ergative Metathesis
TPast ClDat TPast ClErg
L-Support
TPast ClDat ClErg TPast
L TPast ClDat ClErg TPast
(216) Application of Ergative Metathesis and L-Support to the output of Root

Reduplication:
C C
T C
T C
T ClDat T C
T ClDat
T C
ClErg C L T ClErg T
Agr C
Agr C
The rightmost copy triggers Ergative Metathesis: it is past tense, and is immediately
followed by an ergative clitic, so it meets the structural description of this rule.78
On the other hand, the leftmost copy of T, despite being past tense, does not meet
this structural description, due to the presence of a first person dative clitic (see
Sect. 5.4.1 above for relevant details). Therefore, T-Noninitiality triggers default L-
Support in this case.
In effect, by restricting the domain of T-Noninitiality to T0max , the output of
Root Reduplication is treated as if it contained two smaller auxiliaries (which,
nevertheless, are part of a single M-word): the leftmost and rightmost daughters of
root C in (216), each with its own T0max and terminal T. This is why this auxiliary
has two separate applications of T-Noninitiality-triggered rules.
77 While T-Noninitiality is only a triggering constraint, inducing Ergative Metathesis and other
rules, T-Peninitiality is both a triggering and blocking constraint: it triggers Local Plural Metathesis
(Sect. 5.3.1) and blocks displacement of more than one clitic to the left of T (Sect. 5.4.1).
78 Note that Minimal Structural Change is also in effect here, as expected: Ergative Metathesis
results in adjunction of the clitic to T, in order to satisfy T-Noninitiality.

The effects that Root Reduplication has on the exponence of different morphemes
in the auxiliary provide further support for the analysis defended here. In particular,
the hypothesis that Root Reduplication applies in the Linear Operations component
prior to Vocabulary Insertion explains the exponence (allomorphy) facts mentioned
in the description of the phenomenon given above. The ergative clitic surfaces
in proclitic form s-. This follows from our analysis of positional neutralization
developed in Chap. 3. The following are the exponents competing for insertion in
this clitic (repeated from Sect. 3.3.2 in Chap. 3):
(217) Vocabulary entries for second person clitics
a. su [peripheral, +motion, +participant, author]
b. s [+participant, author]/ T
As in other cases of Ergative Metathesis, the contextual specification T for
case-neutral s- (217b) is satisfied by the ergative clitic after Root Reduplication, and
thus decides the competition for insertion in this case. Our analysis also accounts
for the difference in the form of the two copies of the root. The relevant vocabulary
entries are the following (repeated from Sect. 3.4.3 in Chap. 3):
(218) Ondarru: vocabulary entries for transitive T in the past
a. en
[+have, +past, part, author]/[Ergative, +part] [Dative]
b. endu
[+have, +past, part, author]/[Ergative, +part]
c. o [+have]
Although both copies of the root have the same feature specification, they are
adjacent to different morphemes:
(219) Output of Root Reduplication, Ergative Metathesis, and L-Support
L TPast ClDat ClErg TPast Agr C
The rightmost copy is realized as -endu- (218b), since it is right-adjacent to a

participant ergative clitic. The first copy is not, which triggers insertion of default
-o- (218c). Note also that past ditransitive -en- (218a) is blocked from insertion
in both copies: this entry requires T to be flanked by a ergative clitic on its left
and by a dative clitic on its right, but neither copy of T satisfies these conditions.
This provides additional support for our hypothesis that contextual restrictions at
Vocabulary Insertion are sensitive to adjacency relations (Sect. 3.2.1 in Chap. 3).
To conclude this section, despite its idiosyncratic characteristics, Root Redu-
plication provides evidence for several aspects of the analysis of auxiliaries in
this book. Although it is a linear operation, reference to hierarchical relations is
crucial in understanding how it satisfies linear constraints, which shows that these
relations are preserved in the Linear Operations component. Like other Generalized
Reduplication rules in Basque, it provides further support for the application of this
type of rule at a stage prior to Vocabulary Insertion. Finally, its effects on realization
illustrate the relevance of adjacency relations on contextual allomorphy.
5.7.3 Modal Particles and T-Noninitiality
We discuss in this final part of the chapter the application of T-Noninitiality in

sentences with modal particles. These particles, discussed briefly in Sect. 2.6 in
Chap. 2, form part of the auxiliary complex, but nevertheless do not prevent the
application of T-Noninitiality-triggered rules such as Ergative Metathesis and L-
Support. This provides a further argument for the Domain Condition on Edge
Constraints proposed in this section.
Basque modal particles are illustrated in the following examples79:
(220) Evidential ei (hearsay information)
Lagun-ak etorr-i ei d -ira -s.
(221) Evidential ete (rhetorical questions)
Nor il-0/ ete d -a?
who.ABS die-PRF EVID L -PRS.3.SG
Who has died? (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:85)
(222) Conditional ba
Ixilik ego-ten ba s -ara
quiet be-IMP if CL.A.2.SG -PRS.2.SG
esa-ngo d -o -tzu -t.
tell-FUT L -PRS.3.SG -CL.D.2.SG -CL.E.1.SG
If youre quiet, Ill tell you. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:394)
This is a class of morphemes whose main function is to mark mood-related
meanings such as evidentiality and conditionality. Syntactically, they belong in a
single category. They are in complementary distribution with each other, and are
always left-adjacent to the finite verb (Ortiz de Urbina 2003b). Furthermore, they
seem to be part of the auxiliary M-word (G. Elordieta 1997; A. Elordieta 2001).
Thus, their behavior contrasts with main verb participles, which, for instance, do
not need to precede the finite auxiliary in negative sentences:
79 The conditional modal particle ba is typically written as part of the finite verb word (e.g. basara
in (222)). On the other hand, evidential modal particles, which have the same prosodic properties
as ba (Hualde et al. 1994:151), are typically written as separate words (e.g. ei diras in (220)).
We adopt a uniform orthographical convention for all these elements and write them as words
separate from the finite verb. Apart from ei, ete, and ba (illustrated below), modal particles in
Ondarru also include interrogative al (used to mark yes/no or rhetorical questions), but we have
not found any description or examples of this particle in our sources for Lekeitio (Hualde et al.
1994) or Zamudio (Gaminde 2000). See Ortiz de Urbina (2003b) for modal particles in other
dialects. Biscayan evidential ei corresponds to omen in other dialects.
(223) Participles after auxiliaries in negatives

Su-k es d -o -su (>tosu)
you(Sg)-ERG not L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.2.SG
arra-e garbi-txu.
fish-ABS.SG clean- PRF.
You(Sg) havent cleaned the fish. (Ondarru)
On the other hand, modal particles must remain left-adjacent to the auxiliary in
negative sentences:
(224) Modal particle-auxiliary order in negatives
San Juan madari-e, trate-tan es ba d -o -su (>osu)
San Juan pear-ABS.SG treat-IMP not if L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.2.SG
koko-ak eroa-ten d -au -0/ (>deu).
beetle-ERG.SG carry-IMP L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.3.SG
If you dont treat a San Juan pear, beetles carry it away.
We take this to mean that modal particles are part of the auxiliary M-word.
Following Cinque (1999), we assume that modal morphemes of this type are
generated in a position above T80 :
(225) The position of modal particles (Mod)
CP
ModP C
TP Mod
AsP T
... Asp
Since Mod intervenes between T and C, movement of T to C must involve a prior
step of movement to Mod, resulting in a complex head (the auxiliary) that includes
modal particles (see below for further details). On the other hand, participles are in
a lower position in the structure (in Asp; see Sect. 1.4.3), and therefore they do not
participate in Head Movement to C.
80 Haddican (2004) makes a similar proposal for Basque modal particles, though under an LCA-
based framework where all heads are linearized to the left of their complement. In Cinques (1999:
5356) hierarchy of functional heads, evidentials (ei, ete) are Modevidential . On the other hand,
Basque conditional ba (which, as argued in Sect. 2.6 in Chap. 2, is not a complementizer) is similar
to the conditional particles treated as epistemic modals (Modepistemic ) in Cinque (1999:5960).
They are thus generated under separate heads in this hierarchy. Given the complementary distribu-
tion among these two categories in Basque, we generate them in the same head position Mod.
As shown in the examples above, modal particles precede all other material in
the auxiliary. Thus, the structure of an auxiliary including a modal particle (and no
clitics) is the following after Linearization81:
(226) The linearized structure of auxiliaries with modal particles
C
Mod C
Mod T Agr C
That is, like dative clitics, Mod is an exception to the general Linearization
algorithm for Basque words (Sect. 2.2.2 in Chap. 2), and is linearized to the left
of the T node adjoined to it.
Further evidence for analyzing modal particles as being part of the auxiliary
comes from a sentence-level Noninitiality condition imposed on this M-word. As
first discussed extensively in Ortiz de Urbina (1989) (see also Ortiz de Urbina
(1994)), finite verbs in Basque cannot be initial within the sentence. Due to an
independent condition against displacing participles to the right of auxiliaries in
non-negative sentences (but see Ortiz de Urbina (1994:130)), providing conclusive
evidence for this with finite auxiliaries is not a straightforward matter. However,
finite main verbs, which have the same syntax as auxiliaries (Sect. 1.4.5 in Chap. 2),
can be used for this purpose:
(227) Sentence Noninitiality
a. Jon-0/ 0/ -e -tor -n. (>etorren)
Jon-ABS L -PST.3.SG -come -CPST
Jon was coming. (Ondarru)
b. *0/ -e -tor -n (>etorren) Jon-0.
/
L - PST.3. SG -come - CPST Jon-ABS
Jon was coming. (Ondarru)
Even though Basque has no general ban on displacing elements to the right of finite
verbs (see below for relevant examples), this is ruled out in cases that would result
81 An anonymous reviewer notes that in careful, slow speech, modal particles are pronounced as
belonging to a prosodic word separate from the auxiliary. It is not clear to us what this entails for
our analysis, in which these particles are part of the auxiliary M-word. It is somewhow related
to orthographic conventions, since evidential ei and ete are written as words separate from the
auxiliary word. On the other hand, conditional ba is always written as part of the auxiliary
word, and, accordingly, it is typically included in the auxiliary prosodic word in careful speech
(see Footnote 79). In contrast with these facts, as shown in Hualde et al. (1994:151), evidential
particles and conditional ba have similar prosodic properties, which makes these differences in
careful speech all the more puzzling. Since we do not undertake an analysis of the mapping from
morphology to prosody in this book, we leave this as a question in need of further study.
in a sentence-initial finite verb. In the framework adopted here, this can be stated as
the following Noninitiality constraint:
(228) CP-Noninitiality
C0max cannot be leftmost within CP.
Given our structure for finite verbs, C0max is the node dominating the finite verb
M-word, so (228) rules out sentences such as (227b) where the finite verb is initial
in the sentence. Interestingly, modal particles are not sufficient to shield the finite
verb from initial position (Ortiz de Urbina 2003b:317, 319):
(229) Modal particles and CP-Noninitiality
a. Jon-0/ ei d -a -tor.
Jon-ABS EVID L -PSR.3.SG -come
Jon seems to be coming. (Ondarru)
b. *Ei d -a -tor Jon-0./
EVID L - PRS .3. SG -come Jon- ABS
Jon seems to be coming. (Ondarru)
In this respect, they contrast with participles: since the latter are not under the same
X 0max as the finite auxiliary, they can count as preceding the finite M-word for the
purposes of CP-Noninitiality:
(230) Participles and CP-Noninitiality
a. Jon-0/ etorr-i s -a -n.
Jon-ABS come-PRF L -PST.3.SG -CPST
Jon came. (Ondarru)
b. Etorr-i s -a -n Jon-0.
/
come-PRF L -PST.3.SG -CPST Jon-ABS
Jon came. (Ondarru)
Thus, unlike participles, modal particles (Mod) are part of the finite verb M-word.
Returning to the main topic of this subsection, auxiliaries with modal particles
provide evidence for the hypothesis that hierarchical relations play a role in the
Linear Operations component, in the form of the Domain Condition on Edge
Constraints. Consider first the structure of the auxiliary in (222), repeated here:
(231) Conditional ba
Ixilik ego-ten ba s -ara
quiet be-IMP if CL.A.2.SG -PRS.2.SG
esa-ngo d -o -tzu -t.
tell-FUT L -PRS.3.SG -CL.D.2.SG -CL.E.1.SG
If youre quiet, Ill tell you. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:394)
(232) The structure of ba sara in (231)

C
Mod C
Mod T Agr C
ba
ClAbs T
s ara
In this structure, T satisfies T-Peninitiality, as it is preceded by a single element (the
absolutive clitic) within T0max . Crucially, this constraint is stated in terms of T0max ,
not some other domain such as the M-word, as predicted by our Domain Condition
on Edge Constraints.
This structure also satisfies T-Noninitiality: T is not initial within T0max . More
telling in this respect are auxiliaries without absolutive clitics. For instance, in (233)
(repeated from (220)) T is preceded by the evidential modal particle ei, but this does
not prevent application of L-Support:
(233) Evidential ei (hearsay information)
Lagun-ak etorr-i ei d -ira -s.
(234) L-Support in ei diras (220)
C C
Mod C Mod C
Mod T Agr C Mod T Agr C

ei s
L T
d ira
Since Mod is outside T0max , no element precedes T within this domain. As a result,
T-Noninitiality triggers L-Support. Similarly, we expect other T-Noninitiality-
triggered operations to apply in auxiliaries with modal particles. The following are
relevant examples of Ergative Metathesis:
(235) Ergative Metathesis in auxiliaries with modal ei
Biarr-a ama-txu ei g -endu -n.
job-ABS.SG finish-PRF EVID CL.E.1.PL -PST.3.SG -CPST.
Apparently, we finished the job. (Ondarru)
(236) Ergative Metathesis in auxiliaries with modal ete

Nola ikas-iko ete s -endu -n ori-0?
/
how learn-FUT EVID CL.E.2.SG -PST.3.SG -CPST that-SG
How would you learn that? (Ondarru)
(237) Ergative Metathesis in auxiliaries with modal ba
Erantzun-a dxaki-ngo ba n -eu -n (>neban)
answer-ABS.SG know-FUT if CL.E.1.SG -PST.3.SG -CPST
esa-ngo n -eu -tzu -n.
tell-FUT CL.E.1.SG -PST.3.SG -CL.D.2.SG -CPST
If I knew the answer, Id tell you. (Lekeitio, Hualde et al. 1994:140)
In these auxiliaries, T-Noninitiality triggers Ergative Metathesis:
(238) Ergative Metathesis in ete sendun (236)
C C
Mod C Mod C
Mod T ClErg C Mod T Agr C

ete n
ClErg T
Agr C
s endu
As in previous examples, Mod does not shield T from being initial within T0max ,
which results in application of Ergative Metathesis.
In summary, the behavior of modal particles provides evidence for the role of
hierarchical relations in the Linear Operations component. In particular, they are not
relevant to T-Peninitiality and T-Noninitiality, since, due to the Domain Condition
on Edge Constraints, only elements within T0max are taken into account in satisfying
these constraints.
To conclude, we would like to note the obvious parallel between word-internal
T-Noninitiality and the sentence-level CP-Noninitiality constraint discussed above:
The terminal cannot be leftmost within T0max .
(240) CP-Noninitiality
C0max cannot be leftmost within CP.
CP-Noninitiality is a sentence-level restriction on the ordering of the auxiliary M-
word (C0max ), and T-Noninitiality is a subword-level restriction on a terminal node.
This suggests a mode general condition on edge-related constraints:
(241) Given an edge constraint C on a 0-level node N regulating the distance of
N from the edge of some domain D:
a. If N is an M-word, then D is the maximal projection of N (XP).
5.8 Conclusion 339
b. Otherwise, N is a terminal, and D is the maximal 0-level projection

of N (X 0max ) .
As the reader can easily check, this condition is satisfied by all Noninitiality and
Peninitiality constraints proposed in this chapter for Basque and other languages. If
correct, this establishes a strong parallel between linearization above and below the
word level. We leave further exploration of this matter for future research.
This parallel also provides a way of formalizing the claim in Gmez Lpez
and Sainz (1995:265268) that word-level second position effects in Basque finite
forms have their historical origin in the sentence-level second position effects still
observable in Modern Basque. If our discussion above is on the right track, we
can understand this hypothesized historical process simply as an extension of the
Noninitiality requirement on the finite M-word to its root. The fact that the domain
of the newly created subword Noninitiality constraint is different from its sentence-
level relative follows from the general condition on edge constraints proposed
above.
Finally, the fact that separate word-internal and sentence-level constraints are
needed in order to account for all the relevant facts in Basque provides evidence for
the notion of M-word posited (sometimes implicitly) in work in the DM framework.
The distinction between the two types of constraints is evident, for instance, in
sentences with a participle and an auxiliary with Ergative Metathesis:
(242) Word-internal and sentence-level second position effects
Irakurr-i n -eu -n. (>neban) liburu-0/
read-PRF CL.E.1.SG -PST.3.SG -CPST book-ABS.SG
I read the book. (Ondarru)
Although the participle irakurri shields the auxiliary M-word from initial position,
it is not sufficient to prevent a violation of Noninitiality word-internally. As a
result, Ergative Metathesis applies to the ergative clitic, displacing it to the left of
T. Therefore, without the M-word, it does not seem to be possible to distinguish
between the two types of second position effects.
5.8 Conclusion
This chapter has covered a lot of ground, focusing on the nature of linearity-
based morphotactics, and the constraints and operations responsible for altering the
output of a headedness-based Linearization. We have proposed that morphological
Metathesis rules found here often operate in response to morphotactic constraints,
such as T-Noninitiality and T-Peninitiality, that refer to the linear position of
certain elements within circumscribed domains. The separation of displacement-
based phenomena within the auxiliary complex allows us to express a principled
division between those generalizations which are pandialectal in Basque, such as
T-Noninitiality and T-Peninitiality, and those repairs which vary greatly within
and across dialectsfor example, Ergative Metathesis and Dative Doubling are
alternative repairs within the same variety, whereas Metathesis of allocutive clitics
can be found within some dialects but not others. Separating the constraint from
the rules allows for a closer investigation into the principles and parameters
in this type of crossdialectal microcomparison, where the idiosyncratic conditions
on particular repairs are encoded separately from the general constraint that
provides a unified motivation for them all. Similarly, encoding the repairs as rules
allows for their application to be decided by the Elsewhere Condition and the
Minimal Distance Principle, which may have disjunctive effects or may allow
feeding relations. Finally, blocking constraints, such as Person-Number Order and
T-Peninitiality, constrain the otherwise free application of potentially applicable
Metathesis rules, guaranteeing that the plural clitic -e never precedes T on its own,
nor together with a separate metathesized clitic.
We have proposed that many phenomena often grouped under the heading of
Local Dislocation in Distributed Morphology should in fact be handled in terms
of the Generalized Reduplication formalism of Harris and Halle (2005), which
provides an implementation for dislocation with specific properties. One of these
properties that we have repeatedly emphasized is the close link that this formalism
affords between Metathesis and Doubling, a relationship we have uncovered time
and again, as certain morphotactically-motivated dislocation phenomena are accom-
panied by dialectal variants which include gratuitous doubled forms. Generalized
Reduplication itself is a formalism originally developed based on parallels between
Reduplication in phonology and morphological doubling, although in fact, it may
turn out to be even more right for the morphotactic cases considered herein which
Metathesis and Doubling are repeatedly found hand-in-handthan for phonotactic
cases, where the link between these two phenomena is less robust.
We have proposed that Metathesis and Doubling operations can occur within the
Linear Operations component, and that this component is crucially sandwiched in
between the derivational anchor points of Linearization and Vocabulary Insertion.
As such, operations in this module have the potential to refer to linear order in
their structural descriptions, unlike, say, operations preceding Linearization such
as Impoverishment. Moreover, such operations have the potential to feed/condition
rules of allomorphy based on linear placement (e.g. the phenomena of positional
neutralization discussed in Chap. 3). Finally, as Linearization is based on syntactic
structure and headedness, it has no result to deliver in the case of fissioned
morphemes that are immediate sisters, and hence a morphotactic pairwise ordering
constraint, interacting with T-Peninitiality, can lead to certain Metathesis operations
in this component as well. In the next chapter, we turn to a more detailed look at
the interaction between syntactic operations and various postsyntactic operations,
arguing for the late character of the morphological Metathesis operations discussed
in this chapter based on their interactions with the operations proposed and analyzed
in previous chapters.
Chapter 6
Rule Interaction in a Serial and Modular
Architecture
6.1 Introduction
In the preceding chapters, we have developed a modular architecture, where syntax

and postsyntax are components which are, to quote Rezac (2011:1), distinct in
their computational character and information types, and narrowly restricted in their
interaction. We have moreover argued that the postsyntactic component is itself
internally organized with a number of submodules, as illustrated in Fig. 6.1, and that
these submodules are crucially serially organized. The focus of this chapter will be
evidence for the necessarily serially ordered interaction among these modules, based
on the types of feeding/bleeding relations and opacity arguments that have been
used to establish evidence for derivational ordering of operations within generative
phonology (see, e.g. Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1979). This principled organization
of the postsyntactic component into serially ordered modules, with concomitant
predictions about rule interactions, has an important precedent within the DM
framework in Embick and Noyer (2001).
Largely explicit in the discussion of all of the preceding chapters has been the
presupposition that the five subcomponents of the Spellout procedure in Fig. 6.1
have distinct computational operations, distinct sensitivities to what kind of struc-
ture they can refer to, and distinct morphotactic motivations, where relevant. Before
proceeding to an in-depth discussion of the order of computational flow among such
modules, however, it is worth remarking that our approach, or indeed, any modular
approach to grammatical structure, must be wary of wielders of Occams Razor
that assert it is better to do everything within one module (e.g. do everything in the
syntax, or do everything in one globally parallel exponence module). Frameworks
such as Nanosyntax, for example, explicitly reject Impoverishment for the sole
conceptual reason that it constitutes a separate module (Caha 2009:260). We
contend that attempting to put Impoverishment-triggering markedness constraints
(Chap. 4) into the syntax would result in a more unconstrained syntax, precisely
because these markedness constraints, unlike the Person Case Constraint (Chap. 2),
have no regard for the relative hierarchical order of the affected elements. Rather

342 6 Rule Interaction in a Serial and Modular Architecture
Fig. 6.1 The serial and

SYNTAX
modular architecture of Merge & Move
Basque auxiliary Agree-Link
word-formation Cliticization
Absolutive Promotion
POSTSYNTAX
Exponence Conversion
Agree-Copy
Fission
...
Feature Markedness
Participant Dissimilation
Plural Clitic Impoverishment
...
Morphological Concord
Have-Insertion
Complementizer Agreement
...
LINEARIZATION
Linear Operations
Clitic Metathesis and Doubling
...
VOCABULARY INSERTION
...
than developing a model of syntax in which some person interactions are sensitive
to hierarchy and some are insensitive and both are in the syntax, we choose to pursue
a division of labor in which operations insensitive to hierarchy are postsyntactic, a
conclusion that finds support in the typology of repairs as well. Most importantly,
the view that emerges from a stratified approach to grammatical computation is
that dialectal variation is more likely to arise in the later modules of the road
to exponenceat its extremes, therefore, syntactic constraints such as the PCC
are expected to show essentially no crossdialectal variation, whereas the specific
content of vocabulary entries is something we expect to vary the most across
dialects. Pursuing an analysis in which specific constraints (e.g. T-Noninitiality) are
localized to specific modules also allows for the formulation of metaconstraints on
such constraints: restrictions on the types of information that can be referred to in
their structural description. Placing all such constraints within the same component
6.1 Introduction 343
(or indeed, failing to cleft Agree into two steps, and hence placing both steps of
the operation in the syntax or both in the postsyntactic component), in a zeal for
reductionism in modules, ironically leads to less restrictiveness, as all operations
within that module should by default have unrestricted global access to any type of
grammatical information.
We enumerate the five postsyntactic modules below:
(1) a. Exponence Conversion: Agree-Copy, Fission (and case-related opera-
tions such as First Dative Impoverishment).
b. Feature Markedness: Impoverishment and Obliteration.
c. Morphological Concord: complementizer agreement, M-Insertion,
Have-Insertion.
d. Linearization and related operations (Metathesis, Doubling).
e. Vocabulary Insertion
An immediate difference in sensitivity can be drawn based on the place of
Linearization in the derivation: operations at (ac) are insensitive to linear order.
This explains why Impoverishment, Obliteration, Fission, and feature-insertion
rules are not sensitive to adjacency. A second difference is that Impoverishment
and Obliteration rules in the Feature Markedness module are, by hypothesis, driven
specifically by morphotactic markedness constraints on featural cooccurrence. A
third difference is that after Linearization, operations such as Metathesis/Doubling
and Vocabulary Insertion can target only whole terminals, and have no access to
individual morphosyntactic features in their structural change (SC). Interestingly,
we contend that syntax can also only establish structural changes (e.g. relations)
that operate on whole nodes. The fact, therefore, that modules (ac), with SC
access to individual features (as well as whole terminals), are sandwiched between
modules without SC access to individual features, constitutes another argument that
(ac) cannot be reduced to syntax. In fact, we argue that module (c) is specifically
devoted to insertion of morphology-specific features that are demonstrably not part
of syntax (e.g. second singular is not plural, but shows up as such on complementizer
agreement due to M-insertion; complementizer agreement is mediated by the
postsyntactic features on T, and does not reflect direct agreement with the subject;
and Have-Insertion can be fed by postsyntactic operations even in the absence of
transitive verbs).
We turn to the interaction within modules (ad) that are relevant for Basque,
before highlighting detailed case studies in the sections that follow. We have argued
that Agree-Copy, within (a), must precede several Impoverishment rules, including
First Singular Clitic Impoverishment (Sect. 4.3.2 in Chap. 4). The reason for this
is that First Singular Clitic Impoverishment removes the [+participant] feature
from the clitic, but leaves this feature intact on the T node itself. Dissociations
of this kind, in which a feature is present on its copied but not its originating
location, provide evidence that Agree(-Copy) must precede Impoverishment of the
feature on the source where it originates, and therefore more generally require
that Impoverishment cannot be interleaved with syntactic operations such as the
establishment of agreement. Naturally, Agree-Copy must precede complementizer
agreement as well (Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 2), since complementizer agreement is

implemented as a postsyntactic operation in the Morphological Concord module
(perhaps the only concord-like operation that we view as truly akin to Embicks
(2010) notion of ornamental morphemes, otherwise not generally adopted in this
book for case and agreement).
In Chap. 4, we noted that Have-Insertion must follow Obliteration, as
transitivity/voice-sensitive allomorphy in the root is affected by ergative
Obliteration, and this in fact constituted part of a major argument that we have
for distinguishing Impoverishment (which may result in zero realization, depending
on the vocabulary entries) vs. Obliteration (morpheme deletion), a distinction that
cannot be captured in theories where Impoverishment is implemented as insertion
of a zero morpheme (e.g. Trommer 1999).
First Dative Impoverishment in Lekeitio must apply before Agree-Copy
(Sect. 2.4.2 in Chap. 2), and must thus apply in the Exponence Conversion com-
ponent. As noted in Chap. 4, Sect. 4.8, we have posited that Impoverishment rules
having to do with case (including Ergative Impoverishment on arguments and the
supplying of absolutive case as a postsyntactic default for caseless arguments) apply
in this module. Case is one of the conditioning factors in the structural description
of many postsyntactic processes, with the potential to feed or bleed Agree-Copy,
Metathesis rules, and other case-specific rules such as Participant Dissimilation.
Among modules (ac), each has distinct properties. Module (a) accomplishes the
most immediate aspects of syntax-morphology mapping, including a postsyntactic
implementation of syntactic Agree, and a setting up of terminals-of-exponence
via Fission. Module (b) effects a simplification of syntactic feature bundles,
based on feature-specific requirements (markedness). Finally, module (c) inserts
morphology-specific features and terminals. While all of these have distinct mo-
tivations and repertoires of operations, they share the property of preparing the
representation for Linearization and Vocabulary Insertion by introducing (and
removing) structures according to specific well-formedness requirements of the
morphological component. We note that the serial ordering of (ac) for which we
have found evidence in Basque, as opposed to the ordering between (ac) as a
block before (d) before (e), is not conceptually necessary, and in fact this provides
an implicit measurement of the confidence we have in the universality of these
particular ordering claims.
While Syntax, Linearization, and Vocabulary Insertion constitute key anchor
points in the derivation before and after which certain operations with particular
properties must apply, we also suggest that potentially some of the operations
we examine here are likely to exhibit crosslinguistic differences in ordering. In
particular, Agree-Copy may apparently be deferred until after Linearization, given
the arguments in Bhatt and Walkow (2011) that Hindi conjunct agreement requires
a division between Agree-Link and Agree-Copy, where only the latter is sensitive
to linear order.
Having demonstrated how each of the operations discussed in this book work
independently, we turn to environments in which they interact, concentrating on
Absolutive Promotion, Participant Dissimilation, and linear operations (including
6.2 Testing the Predicted Interactions 345
Ergative Metathesis and Root Reduplication). Recall that based on intrinsic

properties of the three operations, we can locate them in one of the modules of
auxiliary word-formation:
(2) Levels of structure-sensitivity in word-formation
a. Syntactic operations that refer to hierarchical structure (Absolutive
Promotion).
b. Postsyntactic operations that occur prior to Linearization, and hence do
not refer to linear order, but do refer to cooccurrence of features within
the same M-word (Participant Dissimilation).
c. Operations after Linearization that refer to linear order (Ergative
Metathesis and Root Reduplication).
The flow of representations generated by successive application of these operations
in turn is schematized in Fig. 6.1 on p. 342.
Since we localize the operations of Absolutive Promotion, Participant Dissimila-
tion, Ergative Metathesis, and Root Reduplication in specific places in the derivation
based on principled properties of their structural descriptions, we can examine
specific feeding and bleeding relationships among them that are predicted as a result
of the following general ordering:
(3) Order of operations
Absolutive Promotion > Participant Dissimilation > Metathesis/Reduplication
Given the placement of these processes in specific modules, the derivational order
between them need not be stipulated extrinsically. Rather, their intrinsic ordering
follows from the specific modular and derivational architecture adopted here.
In the following section, we examine five specific pairwise interactions, as well
as interactions of three operations in a single auxiliary, showing how in each case
the data confirm the predictions of the hypothesis.
6.2 Testing the Predicted Interactions
This section tests the predictions made above with six case studies. Confirming
evidence for our predictions come from a number of dialects, including Gernika,
Ondarru, Zamudio and others. Ondarru plays a prominent role in most of these case
studies, simply because it is the only one among those discussed in this book that
has all the three types of processes examined here.1 For ease of exposition, the
1 Given the dialectal distribution of these processes, it is not surprising that very few dialects have
all three of them. Although all dialects of Basque have Ergative Metathesis and related linear
operations, Participant Dissimilation is only reported in a few varieties (Sect. 4.6 in Chap. 4), and
Absolutive Promotion in a similarly small set of dialects (Sect. 2.3.2 in Chap. 2) that overlaps with
the former set in a single focal point in which such a derivational embarrassment of riches may be
observed, namely Ondarru.
organization of this section parallels the derivational order of the operations

involved. We begin with two opaque interactions that involve postsyntactic Absolu-
tive Promotion and postsyntactic processes (feeding/counterbleeding in Sect. 6.2.1
and opaque feeding in Sect. 6.2.2), followed by three cases of interactions between
prelinearization Participant Dissimilation and postlinearization Metathesis and Dou-
bling operations (Sects. 6.2.36.2.5). We come back to opaque ordering relations
between Absolutive Promotion and the other two types of processes in Sect. 6.2.6,
where we test all of them in a single auxiliary form. In each of these case studies,
we compare the order predicted by our theory with an alternative where the order
is different, or where no derivations are posited. Although we do not know of any
particular competing theory that predicts alternative orders in a principled way, the
comparison with opposite-ordered or non-ordered relations is useful in understand-
ing the details of the interactions between the different operations involved.
An alternative account of some of the facts discussed here might attempt to see if
the ordering and application of these processes can follow from a principle ensuring
maximal application of all rules, thereby dispensing with the need for any ordering
statements at all beyond that.2 We do not compare this alternative analysis in our
case studies below, because it erroneously predicts there to be no bleeding relations
between the rules discussed in this book. That this prediction is not borne out is
shown, for instance, by the fact that First Singular Clitic Impoverishment, a rule
discussed at several points in Chaps. 3 and 4, prevents the application of several
other Impoverishment rules. The ordering of this rule before these other operations
cannot follow from a principle ensuring maximal application, but it does follow
from a principled division in the Markedness component between paradigmatic
vs. syntagmatic markedness submodules (see Sect. 4.8 in Chap. 4 for relevant
discussion).
6.2.1 Promotion and Dissimilation: Feeding

and Counterbleeding
The first case we consider involves cases of applicative intransitive sentences (with
psych predicates) where both the internal argument and the dative experiencer
are participant persons. In some dialects, Absolutive Promotion is enacted in
this context as a PCC repair, and the otherwise absolutive internal argument
acquires ergative case, which triggers cliticization to C. Consider what effect this
is predicted to have in dialects where Participant Dissimilation obliterates a dative
clitic in the context of an ergative clitic, whose source is typically an external
argument. In sentences with a promoted absolutive (i.e. ergative), this clitic is
2 This alternative was suggested in some comments by an anonymous reviewer.

predicted to condition deletion of the participant dative clitic. It is thereby predicted

that in a dialect with Absolutive Promotion and this specific type of Participant
Dissimilation, the former creates a new structural description for the latter, even
though there is no external argument in the syntax of the clause. The predicted
result in this particular case is Obliteration of the dative due to the presence of the
promoted absolutive3:
(4) Absolutive Promotion and Participant Dissimilation
a. Absolutive Promotion:
[C [T T DatPart ] [C Abs/ErgPart C ]]
b. Participant Dissimilation:
[C T [C Abs/ErgPart C ]]
This creates a very opaque surface form. The only reason that Absolutive Promotion
occurs is because there is competition for the clitic host position of T with the dative.
The triggering context for Absolutive Promotion is a dative clitic, but due to the
syntactic repair that is chosen, a subsequent context is created in which the dative
itself is deleted. The result is apparent overapplication of Absolutive Promotion,
which normally only occurs in the presence of a dative clitic argument, but in
this case the dative is not found on the surface. In this sense, these two processes
are in a counterbleeding order: Participant Dissimilation has the potential to bleed
Absolutive Promotion, as the former deletes the dative clitic that is part of the
conditioning of the latter, but the ordering predicted by the theory counters this
bleeding relation.
This interaction is exemplified in Ondarru, which has both Absolutive Promotion
and a Participant Dissimilation rule with the necessary properties, repeated here for
convinience (see Sect. 4.6.1 in Chap. 4 for details):
(5) Ondarru: 1Pl Obliteration
Cl2 such that Cl1 is [+participant, +author] and Cl2 is [Ergative,
+participant].
In particular, the rule deletes a first plural dative (or absolutive) clitic in the context
of a second person ergative. As predicted by our derivational theory, Obliteration
also applies when the ergative clitic is a promoted absolutive:
3 We use the abbreviations Abs, Dat, and Erg to represent absolutive, dative, and ergative clitics
respectively in (4) and other examples below. Note also the use of Abs/ErgPart in order to
represent the fact that the internal argument clitic (absolutive in non-PCC contexts) is promoted to
ergative position. In representing the structure of the auxiliary before Linearization, the morphemes
are linearly ordered on the page for obvious typographical reasons. Importantly, no precedence
relations are present at this stage of the derivation, and no operations such as Absolutive Promotion
and Participant Dissimilation can be sensitive to it.
(6) Absolutive Promotion and Obliteration in Ondarru

Gu-ri su-k/0/ gusta-te d -o -su (>su)
us-DAT you(Sg)-ERG/ABS like-PRF L -PRS.3.SG -CL.E.2.SG
We like you(Sg). (Ondarru)
Note that if there were lookahead and it was known that the dative would be
deleted, there would be no reason to promote the internal argument in the first
place; in fact doing so needlessly violates T-Noninitiality and therefore creates the
structural description for L-Support, reflected in the insertion of the L-exponent d-
(see Sect. 6.2.2 below for more on the interaction of Absolutive Promotion and T-
Noninitiality). Nonetheless, Absolutive Promotion is a syntactic operation, blind to
the eventual fact that the dative clitic will be deleted in the postsyntactic Markedness
modulea stage that is too late, since the time to ensure a host for every clitic is in
the syntax.
On the other hand, the predictions of an analysis with the opposite derivational
order are not borne out by the data. Under this analysis, Participant Dissimilation
would apply before Absolutive Promotion, which entails that the internal argument
would first cliticize to absolutive (proclitic) position. The predicted form would
depend on whether Participant Dissimilation can apply in this structure to delete
a first plural dative clitic in the context of a second person absolutive proclitic (this
combination never surfaces due to the PCC, and is therefore not taken into account
in our formulation of Participant Dissimilation in Ondarru (5)). If it did apply in
this case, the result would be bleeding of Absolutive Promotion, since its required
environment is removed by Participant Dissimilation. Such a prediction is not borne
out:
(7) Ungrammatical derivation of (6) with only Obliteration
*Gu-ri su-k/0/ gusta-te s -as.
us-DAT you(Sg)-ERG/ABS like-PRF CL.A.2.SG -PRS.2.SG
This alternative order also makes wrong predictions if Participant Dissimilation does
not apply to absolutive-dative combinations. This would result in a nonbleeding
relation where Absolutive Promotion applies:
(8) Ungrammatical derivation of (6) with only Absolutive Promotion
*Gu-ri su-k/0/ gusta-te
us-DAT you(Sg)-ERG/ABS like-PRF
d -o -ku -su (>skusu)
L - PRS .3. SG - CL. D.1. PL - CL. E.2. SG
As in the previous case, this prediction is contrary to fact, confirming that Absolutive
Promotion applies before Participant Dissimilation.
To summarize, Absolutive Promotion and Participant Dissimilation interact
opaquely, since the former applies with no apparent surface motivation. At the
syntactic stage where Absolutive Promotion applies, the triggering dative clitic is
present, which forces cliticization of the internal argument to C. The eventual later
deletion of the dative is irrelevant at the point in which the internal clitic argument
is promoted. Therefore, the type of opacity exemplified in this interaction provides
strong evidence for a modular and derivational theory, and confirming evidence that
Absolutive Promotion is not a late morphological adjustment.
6.2.2 Absolutive Promotion Opaquely Feeds Ergative

Metathesis
As discussed briefly in the previous subsection, one of the consequences of Absolu-

tive Promotion is the stranding of T in initial position at Linearization: the internal
argument, which typically cliticizes to T and is linearized to its left, cliticizes to C
instead (and acquires ergative case). In our analysis, this takes place in the syntax,
where hierarchical but not linear structure is visible. As such, the launching of
the absolutive away from proclitic position (i.e. what would eventually become
proclitic position upon Linearization) satisfies a hierarchical syntactic constraint on
cliticization, but causes a linear problem downstream, as it is specifically leaving the
left edge of T in the lurch, with nothing to satisfy T-Noninitiality. In the previous
subsection, we saw that this triggers application of L-Support in the present tense.
When Linearization occurs for a past tense form, once it is detected that there is
an enclitic attached to C that is eligible for Ergative Metathesis, the hierarchically-
promoted clitic can now be linearly transposed to the left of T in order to satisfy
T-Noninitiality.4 This is a ping-pong derivation of sorts: each module acts according
to its own well-formedness, without regard to the needs of other modules, a classic
argument for encapsulation. The internal argument would normally be expected to
be a proclitic, if not for the syntactic presence of the dative. In the syntax, it moves
away from its typical proclitic position, and in the late post-syntax, it is moved back
to proclitic position:
(9) Absolutive Promotion feeds Ergative Metathesis
[C [T T Dat ] [C Abs/ErgPart C ]]
b. Ergative Metathesis:
[C [T Abs/ErgPart T Dat ] C ]
Once again, Ondarru is a relevant dialect, since it has both operations. As shown
in the following example, the prediction that the internal argument surfaces as a
proclitic is borne out:
4 Recall that Ergative Metathesis can only occur in the past tense, due to a parochial condition on
its application (Sect. 5.4 in Chap. 5).

(10) Ping-pong derivational placement of absolutive clitic in Ondarru

Ni-k/0/ Jon-ei gusta-ten
I-ERG/ABS Jon-DAT like-IMP
n -e -tz -n. (>netzan)
CL. E.1. SG - PST.3. SG - CL. D.3. SG - CPST
John used to like me. (Ondarru)
Further support for the correctness of this prediction is provided from other dialects
with both operations in Rezac (2008c:81). The result is a very opaque form: the
internal argument clitic is promoted to enclitic position (because of the dative clitic),
then back to its usual proclitic position (Ergative Metathesis). In this example, there
is an apparent lack of Absolutive Promotion, since the absolutive clitic n- does
appear as a proclitic even though it is a PCC context in which it is unexpected. This
is explained in the current theory by the hypothesis that Absolutive Promotion is
followed by Ergative Metathesis, which undoes its effects with respect to the linear
position and exponence of the clitic.
In the opposite derivational order, Ergative Metathesis would be ordered first.
Since this is an argument-structural combination without an ergative clitic, Erga-
tive Metathesis would not apply. Thus, only Absolutive Promotion would apply,
resulting in one of the following two forms, depending on whether L-Support were
ordered before or after Absolutive Promotion:
(11) Ungrammatical auxiliaries for (10) with only Absolutive Promotion
a. *o -tz -t -n (>otzaten)
PST.3. SG - CL . D .3. SG - CL . E .1. SG - CPST
b. *d -o -tz -t -n (>dotzaten)
L - PST.3. SG - CL . D .3. SG - CL . E .1. SG - CPST
Neither prediction is correct. As shown in (10), netzan, with the internal argument
as proclitic n-, is the only grammatical option.
Readers inclined to question this type of derivational argument might wonder
whether this result is just an artifice of the derivational architecture of the grammar
assumed here. After all, the internal argument clitic in (10) is in its usual proclitic
position, and one might simply stipulate that Absolutive Promotion does not apply in
this particular context, i.e. in the past tense. The obvious response to this criticism
is that this would be a stipulation with no explanatory value, since past tense is
precisely the context where we independently expect Ergative Metathesis to apply
and thereby have the potential to undo the effects of Absolutive Promotion. The
attested form is predicted by the current derivational analysis without recourse to
any additional assumptions.
One might avoid the no-Absolutive-Promotion stipulation in a nonmodular and
nonderivational theory by prioritizing satisfaction of T-Noninitiality over PCC:
Absolutive Promotion would fail to apply, leaving the internal argument clitic in first
position in order to satisfy Noninitiality. This is a potentially interesting analysis,
since it might predict the existence of dialects with the opposite ranking of the
constraints where one of the options in (11) is actually a grammatical counterpart

of Ondarru (10). This alternative analysis of the facts faces several problems. All
known dialects with both Absolutive Promotion and Ergative Metathesis that have
been tested for interaction between these two processes yield the same result as
Ondarru. This includes Tolosa in the Guipuscoan dialect (Rezac 2008c:81), as well
as the Biscayan varieties of Gernika, Mendata, and Mundaka.5 The following is a
relevant example from Gernika, which differs from Ondarru (10) in the -features
of the dative clitic (irrelevant for the interaction discussed here)6:
(12) Absolutive Promotion and Ergative Metathesis in Gernika
Ondo jeus-i n -o -tzu -n.
well fall-PRF CL.1.SG -PST.3.SG -CL.D.2.SG -CPST
You(Sg) liked me. (Gernika)
As in Ondarru, this is a PCC context where the internal argument clitic is in
auxiliary-initial position, as predicted by our analysis.
Moreover, independent evidence that the internal argument undergoes Abso-
lutive Promotion is provided by several morphosyntactic properties of examples
like Ondarru (10).7 First, the doubled (pronominal) argument has ergative case.
Although, for reasons discussed in Sect. 2.3.2 in Chap. 2, it can surface as absolutive
ni, the fact that it can also surface as ergative nik is a decisive flag of Absolutive
Promotion. Since the clitic is in proclitic position, it must have undergone Ergative
Metathesis as well. Second, morphophonological evidence internal to the auxiliary
also establishes that our derivational analysis is the correct one. In particular,
auxiliary netzan in (10) has the shape of a ditransitive auxiliary with an ergative
clitic. Although this is not visible in the ergative clitic itself, which surfaces in
case-neutral shape due to its proclitic position (Sect. 3.3.2 in Chap. 3), this can
be observed in the allomorphic effects this clitic has on other morphemes in the
auxiliary. First, the root (T) is transitive, which means that there is an ergative clitic
in the auxiliary that triggers insertion of [+have]. The relevant entries for T in this
context are the following (repeated from Sect. 3.4.3 in Chap. 3):
(13) Ondarru: relevant entries for T in (10)
a. e
[+have, +past, part, author]/[Erg, +author, +sing] [Dative]
b. a [have]
5 Itshould be noted that Absolutive Promotion is a seriously understudied phenomenon in the

Basque literature (compared to others such as Ergative Metathesis). It is for this reason attested in
only a few varieties, and further field work might uncover varieties that do confirm the predictions
of the alternative theory being discussed here.
6 We are grateful to Olatz Mendiola for her help in obtaining examples from these Biscayan
varieties.
7 Although we discuss evidence from Ondarru only, the morphological patterns described for this
dialect have close parallels in all of the other varieties mentioned above.
The fact that transitive -e- (13a) is chosen over intransitive -a- (13b) signals the
presence of an ergative clitic. Note, furthermore, that -e- is specified as being right-
adjacent to an ergative proclitic, which can only be the result of Ergative Metathesis,
providing further support for the hypothesis that this auxiliary has a metathesized
ergative clitic.
In addition, the (morphological) transitivity of this auxiliary is also evident in
the allomorph of the third person dative clitic -tz. This allomorph is specific to
auxiliaries whose root is specified as [+have]. In forms without an ergative clitic
(where T is thus specified as [have]), the dative clitic form used is -ko. The relevant
vocabulary entries are the following, repeated from Sect. 3.3.2 in Chap. 3:
(14) Vocabulary entries for third person dative clitics
a. tz [+peripheral, +motion, part, author]/ [+have]
b. ko [+peripheral, +motion, participant, author]
The use of -tz in (10) is evidence that the auxiliary contains an ergative clitic that
triggers insertion of [+have]. Thus, we have strong morphophonological evidence
coming from two different sources (the root and the dative clitic) that the clitic
n- doubling the internal argument must go through a first (syntactic) stage of
Absolutive Promotion to enclitic position.
Summarizing, as predicted only by the derivational ping-pong analysis, cliticiza-
tion of the internal argument to enclitic position for syntactic reasons and then back
to proclitic position for morphotactic reasons yields an opaque form. Even though
the internal argument clitic appears on the surface in its typical proclitic position,
the case of the doubled argument and different morphophonological flags allow us
to detect that it once occupied an ergative enclitic position in C (only to be moved
back later). Nonderivational analyses would not predict this fact, since, as a matter
of principle, they would not posit an intermediate stage where the clitic would be in
ergative position. Furthermore, late application of Ergative Metathesis, specifically,
after syntactic operations such as Absolutive Promotion, has a straightforward
explanation in a theory where the former is a postsyntactic operation, as noted in
Rezac (2008c:88). The interaction discussed in the next subsection provides further
support for this hypothesis.
6.2.3 Participant Dissimilation Feeds Ergative Metathesis
In one of the instantiations of Participant Dissimilation, an absolutive clitic marked

as [+participant] is deleted as the result of dissimilation with a co-occurring
ergative clitic also specified as [+participant]. For instance, in Ondarru, a first plural
absolutive clitic is deleted in the context of a second person ergative clitic in C,
a subcase of 1Pl Obliteration in this dialect (Sect. 6.2.1 above). This takes place
at the level of the Feature Markedness module, and occurs without lookahead, in
other words blind to the fact that, by obliterating the absolutive clitic attached to T,
this instance of Participant Dissimilation specifically incurs a subsequent violation
of T-Noninitiality after Linearization. This in turn creates a structural description

ripe for the application of Ergative Metathesis in the Linear Operations module,
which would otherwise be inapplicable in the presence of a first person absolutive
argument:
(15) Participant Dissimilation feeds Ergative Metathesis
a. Syntax:
[C [T AbsPart T ] [C ErgPart C ]]
[C T [C ErgPart C ]]
c. Ergative Metathesis:
[C [T ErgPart T ] C ]
This is a feeding relationship: Obliteration of the absolutive proclitic leaves T in
initial position. The relevant Ondarru form displays the predicted feeding order8:
(16) Participant Dissimilation feeds Ergative Metathesis in Ondarru
Su-k gu-0/ ikus-i s -endu -n
you(Sg)-ERG us-ABS see-PRF CL.E.2.SG -PST.1.PL -CPST
You(Sg) saw us. (Ondarru)
As in other interactions discussed in this chapter, examples of this form show
that there is no lookahead: application of Participant Dissimilation by deleting the
absolutive clitic is blind to the fact that this results in a violation of T-Noninitiality
at a later stage in the derivation.
In a theory with the opposite derivational order, Ergative Metathesis would have
the chance of applying first, but would not, due to the presence of the absolutive
proclitic. This prediction is not correct: s-endu-n, with Ergative Metathesis, is the
only possible surface form for the auxiliary in (16). Any alternative that does not
involve Metathesis of the ergative clitic is ungrammatical:
(17) Ungrammatical auxiliaries for (16) with no Ergative Metathesis
a. No Obliteration
*g -endu -su -n
CL . A .1. PL - PST.1. PL - CL . E .2. SG - CPST
b. Obliteration but no L-Support
*eu -su -n
PST.1. PL - CL . E .2. SG - CPST
c. Obliteration and L-Support
*s/0/g/d
/ -eu -su -n
L -PST.1.PL -CL.E.2.SG -CPST
8 Note that agreement in T in (16) is for third person, even though the absolutive argument it
agrees with syntactically is first person. This is due to First Plural Impoverishment, which applies
independently of Participant Dissimilation of the absolutive clitic (Sect. 3.4.3 in Chap. 3).
In summary, as predicted by the modular theory defended here, Participant Dissim-

ilation precedes and therefore feeds Ergative Metathesis. This is further demonstra-
tion of the late postsyntactic application of the latter operation, given that it is fed
by other postsyntactic rules such as Participant Dissimilation, whose postsyntactic
status since it was first introduced into theoretical literature in Arregi and Nevins
(2007) remains unchallenged. The next subsection examines interaction between
the same two types of rules, but it is a case of bleeding because of differences in the
specific Dissimilation rule discussed.
6.2.4 Participant Dissimilation Bleeds Ergative Metathesis
In the past tense, Ergative Metathesis is the normal repair to T-Noninitiality in

transitive sentences. However, in dialects that enact Participant Dissimilation specif-
ically obliterating a participant ergative clitic in the presence of a participant dative,
the prediction is that the ergative clitic gets wiped out before it has a chance to
satisfy T-Nonititiality. One of the results of the ordering of Participant Dissimilation
specifically before T-Noninitiality and its repairs are evaluated/enacted is that L-
Support, the morphological epenthesis process that normally does not occur in the
past tense if there is an ergative clitic, takes place in the past tense precisely when
the ergative clitic has been eradicated by a previous module. Again, we see a case
of lack of lookahead at work: if only the Feature Markedness module knew that
the ergative clitic would be later needed to fill the left edge for T, it might not have
gotten rid of it. But the modular organization of the postsyntactic component is blind
to such global optimizations.
A dialect where this specific prediction can be tested is Zamudio, which has the
relevant Participant Dissimilation rule, repeated here from Sect. 4.6.2 in Chap. 4:
(18) Zamudio: 1Pl Obliteration
Cl2 such that Cl1 is [+motion, +participant, +author] and Cl2 is
[+participant].
Consider a case with a participant ergative argument in the context of a participant
dative. The predicted form has no ergative clitic, and L-Support applies instead of
Ergative Metathesis:
(19) Participant Dissimilation bleeds Ergative Metathesis
a. Syntax:
[C [T T DatPart ] [C ErgPart C ]]
[C [T T DatPart ] C ]
c. L-Support (not Ergative Metathesis):
[C [T L T DatPart ] C ]
This prediction is confirmed by the following example:

(20) Participant Dissimilation bleeds Ergative Metathesis in Zamudio
Gu-k atzo lagun-du y -a -tzu -e -n
we-ERG yesterday accompany-PRF L -PST.3.SG -CL.D.2 -CL.D.PL -CPST
estasio-ra.
station-ALL.SG
We accompanied you(Pl) to the station. (Zamudio)
The opposite derivational order would metathesize the ergative to proclitic position
first. Later application of Participant Dissimilation, deleting the metathesized
ergative, would only result in the right form yatzue only if L-Support were ordered
after Participant Dissimilation.
To summarize so far, the order of operations in our theory predicts the attested
interaction between the Participant Dissimilation and Ergative Metathesis. A theory
that reversed the order of the two operations would only make correct predictions
at the cost of ordering L-Support after Participant Dissimilation, thereby missing
the fact that L-Support and Ergative Metathesis serve the same repair function, and
hence should be tightly connected in their application, as assumed in most analyses
of the phenomenon (Sect. 5.5 in Chap. 5).
6.2.5 Participant Dissimilation Bleeds Root Reduplication
Previous subsections have examined the interaction of different Participant Dissim-

ilation rules and Ergative Metathesis. This subsection concentrates on a different
rule applying in the Linear Operations module in Ondarru, Root Reduplication,
which results in two copies of the root (T) in certain environments (Sect. 5.7.2 in
Chap. 5). One of the conditioning factors in this rule, which applies only in past
ditransitives, is the presence of a first person dative clitic. Our theory hence predicts
nontrivial interaction with 1Pl Obliteration in this dialect (Sect. 6.2.1), which targets
first person plural dative (and absolutive) clitics in the context of a participant
ergative. Specificially, 1Pl Obliteration, by deleting the dative clitic, should prevent
application of Root Reduplication9:
(21) Participant Dissimilation bleeds Root Reduplication
a. Syntax:
[C [T T Dat1Pl ] [C ErgPart C ]]
[C T [T ErgPart C ]]
9 As shown in (21), Ergative Metathesis is predicted to apply in this auxiliary, in order to satisfy
T-Noninitiality. However, this is not due to the absence of Root Reduplication, since the latter rule
also feeds Ergative Metathesis (Sect. 5.7.2 in Chap. 5).
c. Ergative Metathesis (no Root Reduplication):

[C [T ErgPart T ] C ]
The prediction is borne out, as illustrated in the following example, where the dative
clitic is absent, and only one copy of the root surfaces:
(22) Participant Dissimilation bleeds Root Reduplication in Ondarru
Su-k gu-ri liburo bat-0/ emo-0/ s -endu -n.
you(Sg)-ERG us-DAT book a-ABS give-PRF CL.E.2.SG -PST.3.SG -CPST
You(Sg) gave us a book. (Ondarru)
If the order of the two rules were reversed, the auxiliary would have two copies
of the root, since Dissimilation targeting the dative clitic that conditions Root
Reduplication would apply after the latter operation. The resulting ungrammatical
output would be the following:
(23) Ungrammatical auxiliary for (22)
*s -endu -eu -n (>sendueban)
CL . E .2. SG - PST.3. SG - PST.3. SG - CPST
This counterbleeding order yields the wrong results: in the absence of a dative clitic
due to Obliteration, Root Reduplication fails to apply.
The preceding argument relies on Root Reduplication applying in past tense
auxiliaries with any first person dative clitic. However, precisely because of its
interaction with Participant Dissimilation, there is no independent evidence that
Root Reduplication does in fact apply in auxiliaries with first person plural
dative clitics. Therefore, an analysis with a derivational order different from ours
could make the right prediction for Ondarru by restricting Root Reduplication to
auxiliaries with first person singular clitics. However, this makes the absence of
Root Reduplication in the Ondarru example accidental. Given the wide dialectal
variation found in linear operations (Chap. 5), one might expect there to be a dialect
like Ondarru where Root Reduplication applied in the context of all first person
datives, in which case the counterpart of the Ondarru auxiliary in (22) in this dialect
would have two copies of the root. On the other hand, our analysis predicts that such
a dialect does not exist on principled grounds. Since Root Reduplication is a linear
operation, it must apply after all operations in the Feature Markedness module,
including Participant Dissimilation. Since Root Reduplication is not a common
rule across Basque dialects (in fact, it has so far been attested only in Ondarru),
this is a prediction that we cannot test at this point. Nevertheless, we include it
in this chapter because it helps to emphasize the principled nature of some of the
interactions predicted by our modular theory.
6.2.6 Promotion, Dissimilation, and Metathesis
We now examine a past tense version of (6) in Sect. 6.2.1. It also has the Duke-
of-York-like property of (10) in Sect. 6.2.2, in that the internal argument clitic is
syntactically promoted to C and then linearly displaced back to its typical proclitic
position by Ergative Metathesis, combined with the fact that it leaves evidence for
being ergative by conditioning Participant Dissimilation targeting the dative clitic,
as in its present tense counterpart in Sect. 6.2.1:
(24) Promoted clitic conditions Obliteration, then moves back to left of T
[C [T T DatPart ] [C Abs/ErgPart C ]]
[C T [C Abs/ErgPart C ]]
c. Ergative Metathesis:
[C [T Abs/ErgPart T ] C ]
In order to find a host in a psych-verb configuration, the participant internal
argument clitic in (24) is hierarchically promoted to ergative position in C. That
is all that concerns this clitic in the syntax. In the input to the Feature Markedness
module, the presence of this ergative clitic creates the condition of co-occurring with
another participant clitic in Ondarru, where the repair operation (1Pl Obliteration,
as in Sect. 6.2.1) deletes a first plural dative (or absolutive) clitic when there is a
second person clitic in ergative position. The result of this operation is the total
absence of a dative clitic on the auxiliary. As discussed in Sect. 6.2.1, this means that
Participant Dissimilation counterbleeds Absolutive Promotion: the former removes
(part of) the environment conditioning earlier application of the latter. Subsequently,
in the Linear Operations module, the absence of any clitic to the left of T in the
past tense attracts the only remaining clitic, namely the ergative one doubling the
internal argument, back over to proclitic position. This ordered interaction between
these three processes makes the right prediction:
(25) Absolutive Promotion, 1Pl Obliteration and Ergative Metathesis in
Ondarru
Gu-ri su-k/0/ gusta-te s -endu -n
us-DAT you(Sg)-ERG/ABS like-IMP CL.E.2.SG -PST.3.SG -CPST
We used to like you(Sg). (Ondarru)
This is the only possible surface form for the auxiliary in this example. As the
reader can verify, the only other possible order that would yield the right output is
Absolutive Promotion (resulting in ergative cliticization of the internal argument),
followed by Metathesis of the promoted clitic to proclitic position, followed by
Obliteration of the dative. This is because, in this particular case of Participant
Dissimilation targeting the dative clitic, this process does not interact with Ergative
Metathesis in any interesting way: 1Pl Obliteration, being an Impoverishment
operation not sensitive to linear order, applies regardless of the linearized position
of the triggering ergative clitic. As shown in Sects. 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 above, in cases
where the two rules interact nontrivially (i.e. when either a participant ergative or
absolutive is deleted in the context of another participant clitic), only an order where
Participant Dissimilation precedes Ergative Metathesis gives the right results.
All other derivational orders would fail to yield correct results, which shows that
Absolutive Promotion must be ordered before both Participant Dissimilation and
Ergative Metathesis. Although this opaque interaction has also been demonstrated
by other cases discussed above (Sects. 6.2.1 and 6.2.2), the present case provides
confirming evidence in a single auxiliary form.
In summary, the resulting surface form in Ondarru (25) is missing a dative clitic,
although there is an overt dative pronominal argument; likewise the form appears to
be one of the sole cases (together with the one in Sect. 6.2.2) in which a participant
internal argument clitic manages to survive as a proclitic in dative-absolutive verb
frames. The violation of an otherwise surface-true generalization that internal
argument proclitics vanish and dative clitics persist in psych-predicates is achieved
here by the fact that each modular stage (hierarchical clitic placement, markedness
cooccurrence, linear morphotactics) operates without looking backwards or looking
forwards. There is no surface-true set of statements to be made in the grammar
of Basque auxiliary morphotactics; rather, the surface sequence represents the
cumulative result of three independent stages of well-formedness.
The Ondarru form in (25) also illustrates an interesting relation between Par-
ticipant Dissimilation of first plural dative and Ergative Metathesis. As discussed
in Sect. 5.4.1 in Chap. 5, neither Ondarru nor Zamudio effect Ergative Metathesis
in the context of a first person dative clitic in an auxiliary that otherwise meets its
structural description. Thus, Ondarru (25) also reveals a feeding relation: Participant
Dissimilation deletes the first plural dative clitic, which enables later application
of Metathesis of the second person ergative clitic to initial position. This relation
between the two rules can also be shown in auxiliaries where the ergative clitic
doubles an external argument, as in the following Zamudio example, repeated from
Sect. 4.6.2 in Chap. 4 (see the corresponding cell Table A.4 in Appendix A for the
same form in Ondarru):
(26) Participant Dissimilation feeds Ergative Metathesis in Zamudio
Sue-k gu-ri lagun-du s -endu -e -n.
you(Pl)-ERG us-DAT accompany-PRF CL.E.2 -PST.3.SG -CL.E.PL -CPST
You(Pl) accompanied us. (Zamudio, Gaminde 2000:376)
In a way similar to the case discussed in Sect. 6.2.5, this prediction rests on the
assumption that the relevant restriction on Ergative Metathesis in these varieties is
against all first person clitics. Precisely because of this interaction with Participant
Dissimilation, there is no independent evidence that Ergative Metathesis does not
apply in the context of first plural dative. However, the case is interesting because
our theory predicts that there can be no dialect that is similar in all relevant
respects to Ondarru and Zamudio except for the fact that it does not effect Ergative
Metathesis in examples like (25) and (26): Participant Dissimilation deletes the
first plural dative clitic, which subsequently entails later application of Ergative
Metathesis regardless of the features of the now-absent dative clitic.
6.3 Conclusion: Predictions of a Modular and Derivational Theory 359
6.3 Conclusion: Predictions of a Modular and Derivational

Theory
The general claim in this chapter is that there are at least three distinct modules
responsible for the formation of Basque auxiliaries, and that the ordering of
Absolutive Promotion, Participant Dissimilation, and Metathesis/Doubling is an
intrinsic consequence of the general stream of transformations from hierarchical
structure without linear order to a linearly ordered sequence of terminals within
an M-word. Word formation in the Basque auxiliary is the result of a principled
division of labor between syntactic processes and different types of morphological
processes.
A more general conclusion may be made about the process of Spellout. Clearly,
syntactic operations, such as Merge, Move (including Cliticization), and Agree
occur before the syntactic structure is spelled out, meaning shipped off to the
postsyntactic component. This component is host to postsyntactic operations on
terminals and features, such as Impoverishment and Obliteration. One of our novel
claims is that these particular postsyntactic operations occur prior to Linearization of
the constituent terminals themselves, based on the hypothesis that all postsyntactic
operations that do not need linear order occur before Linearization. Linearization
converts structures with directionless sisterhood relations into structures that incor-
porate left-right ordering statements for each pair of sisters. Operations that depend
on linear order (e.g. T-Noninitiality repairs such as Ergative Metathesis) are clearly
ordered after Linearization.
By transitivity, the ordering of a number of these processes and whether their
interaction is one of feeding, bleeding, counterfeeding, or counterbleeding is a
result of whether these processes are (a) sensitive to hierarchical structure but not
linear order or M-word cooccurrence, (b) sensitive to M-word cooccurrence but not
hierarchical structure or linear order, or (c) sensitive to linear order. The Basque
dialects chosen to exemplify these interactions have the advantage of possessing
the relevant operations at each stratum of word formation, but it is by no means a
universal that a language must have, for example, linear order sensitive conditions
on morphotactics interacting with Impoverishment (or indeed linear order based
morphotactics at all beyond basic Linearization rules). However, the predictions
of the account here are intended to be universal in nature: if a language indeed
has three such word formation operations, their interaction is predicted only to
be possible in the ordering shown above. The intricate predictions of the model
developed here as borne out in environments in which more than one operation can
apply, given intermediate representations, provide support for a modular theory of
syntax-morphology in which certain formal properties of an operation determine its
principled placement in one of the derivationally ordered modules.
Detailed comparison with a nonderivational and/or monostratal theory is not
possible at this point, since the literature on this type of theory does not analyze
several of the Basque word-formation processes discussed here, including Absolu-
tive Promotion and Participant Dissimilation (not surprisingly, since these processes
have come to the attention of theoretical linguists only recently). Although some
of the interactions studied here are highly opaque and therefore a challenge for
such a framework, only detailed analyses of these phenomena in Basque and other
languages can make specific predictions that can be compared to the ones made
here.
Finally, the interactions examined in this chapter allow us to draw more specific
conclusions about the operations involved. Absolutive Promotion, a PCC repair, is
an early process, a conclusion that is much in accord with recent syntactic analyses
of PCC effects. On the other hand, interactions with other processes reveals Ergative
Metathesis to be a late postsyntactic process, which provides evidence against
syntactic analyses of the phenomenon. This speaks to the predictive power of the
modular and serial architecture defended here, where formal properties of different
operations determine how they interact with each other.
Chapter 7
Concluding Themes
7.1 Introduction
Our main goal in this book has been to simultaneously provide a principled analysis
of the morphotactics of the Basque auxiliary while at the same time developing
an articulated model within the Distributed Morphology framework that involves
crucial revisions and new developments in the theory. In this chapter we aim to
close our discussion of Basque auxiliaries with a focus on three larger issues, with
an aim towards bringing out central threads that have run throughout the book, and
identifying directions that can stimulate further research.
7.2 Distinguishing Types of Exponents
In these sections we wish to emphasize a fundamental principle that guided our

entire analysis of Basque auxiliaries: not every apparent exponent of a feature F
is a morphological creature of the same type. We believe we have been able to
achieve great progress in the analysis of the empirical generalizations, the nature
of dialectal variation, and the formal analysis of the auxiliary systems of Lekeitio,
Ondarru, Zamudio and other Basque dialects specifically because we have departed
from two traditional assumptions made by the majority of preceding analyses: (1)
that the Basque auxiliary shows agreement with up to three arguments, (2) that
the Basque auxiliary shows a range of pluralizers, which jointly form a kind of
exponence of agreement with plural arguments, even though discontinuous, and
with wild differences in distribution as well as placement. We have instead embraced
a principled distinction between clitics and agreement for verbal arguments, and
between plural morphemes that result from Fission and those that reside on a fixed
morphosyntactic terminal.

362 7 Concluding Themes
7.2.1 Plural Marking as a Microcosm of DM Operations
The organization of the preceding chapters has been, to a large extent

chronological along the path of Spellout from syntactic structure to phonological
form. In the present section we focus specifically on the phenomenon of plural
marking within the Basque auxiliary, as it reflects a suite of diverse operations and
thereby constitutes an argument for the distributed part of Distributed Morphology,
in which the division of labor of exponence of realizing a syntactically plural feature
is achieved by distinct modules and opertions.
Of paramount importance is the conclusion that multiple exponence, while
potentially a useful descriptive term, names an epiphenomenon in terms of the
grammatical mechanisms interacting in the theory. Consider the fact that plurality
is marked by at least three distinct elements: -e (a plural clitic), -s (complementizer
agreement), and -it- (part of the root that we do not consider to be segmentable into
a synchronically isolable element). Consider first, the differences between these first
two, repeated from (45) in Chap. 3 (for details of the processes discussed here, see
Sect. 2.4.3 in Chap. 2, and Sect. 3.3.43.3.6 in Chap. 3):
(1) Differences between clitic -e and complementizer agreement -s
a. -s surfaces with first plural, -e does not.
b. -s surfaces with second singular, -e does not.
c. -s surfaces only with absolutive, -e with absolutive, dative, and ergative.
d. -s surfaces with third plural absolutive, -e does not.
Stated differently, these two elements have the following distribution:
(2) Clitic vs. agreement distinction and the distribution of plural marking:
a. -e is the realization of a plural clitic, fissioned from a clitic with any
case, as long as it is not first plural.
b. -s is the realization of complementizer agreement, possible with any
plural argument, as long as the latter undergoes agreement (e.g. absolu-
tive).
Lets return, therefore, to (1a)(1d). Difference (1a) is a result of the fact that
the operation Fission does not occur for first plural clitics, due to the specific
feature cooccurrence trigger [author, singular]. Fission, an operation in the
Exponence Conversion module, is relevant only for clitics, and hence comple-
mentizer agreement remains intact with first plural arguments. Difference (1b) is
a result of the fact that M-Insertion, an operation in the Morphological Concord
component, occurs for second singular on complementizer agreement, but not on
clitics, due to the diachronic reanalysis of this agreement following the change in
the encoding of the formal/colloquial distinction. Difference (1c) is a result of the
fact that Fission occurs for all (non-first person) plural clitics, regardless of case,
whereas complementizer agreement is restricted to those arguments that succeed
in establishing both Agree-Link and Agree-Copy, namely only absolutive elements
7.2 Distinguishing Types of Exponents 363
in most cases (Sect. 2.4.2 in Chap. 2). The distinction, therefore, is a consequence
of both Fission and of the properties of Agree-Copy, which is also localized in the
Exponence Conversion module. Finally, difference (1d) is a consequence of the fact
that third person absolutive arguments do not generate accompanying clitics, a fact
that is localized in the syntax of big-DP syntactic structure (Sect. 2.2.1 in Chap. 2).
These operations have different bases, many of which reflect fundamental
differences between clitics and agreement. Beginning with the syntactic component,
third person absolutive arguments fail to generate a clitic due to the nature of the
syntax of DPs, which include less structure for third person absolutive arguments
than other arguments. Although such DP arguments are distinguished from others in
terms of their ability to generate a clitic, nonetheless they participate in Agree-Link
just as any other argument. The repercussions of the clitic/agreement distinction are
therefore found quite saliently in the case of third person absolutives.
Turning to the Exponence Conversion module, Fission affects clitics, but not
agreement. In a sense, this reflects the fact that what most resembles multiple
exponence, in the sense of two distinct pieces of morphology literally exponing
the same terminal, occurs for clitics, but not agreement.1 Agreement itself does
show the possibility of double realization since in Basque it is localized on distinct
heads as a result of the Morphological Concord module operation of copying Ts
-features to C (complementizer agreement). This in turn can result in copying two
distinct sets of -features, which subsequently, given the algorithm for Vocabulary
Insertion proposed in Chap. 3 (based on the modifications adapted from van Koppen
2005), may in fact result in two distinct agreement realizations on these morphemes
(Sect. 3.4.4 in Chap. 3), as in (3), repeated from (96) in Chap. 3:
(3) Su-k ni-rii antxo-ak j emo-n
you(Sg)-ERG me-DATi anchovy-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 j
You(Sg) have given me anchovies. (Lekeitio, Fernndez 2001:162)
In this example, complementizer agreement is with the absolutive argument (which
is plural) while T shows agreement with the singular dative argument.
Returning to plural clitics, these show a number of properties distinct from the
expression of plural agreement in the auxiliary root and the complementizer, due
to postsyntactic operations such as Fission, Impoverishment, and Metathesis that
specifically target clitics. For example, plural clitics may be targeted by Plural Clitic
Impoverishment, discussed in Sect. 4.7 in Chap. 4. This is a result of syntagmatic
markedness, whereby the presence of certain other features within the auxiliary
1 Again, we generally do not consider multiple exponence (or exuberant exponence, in the
sense of Harris 2009), to be a theoretically valid option, but an empirical problem in need of
an explanation. One such explanation adopted for Basque finite verbs in this book is based on the
clitic vs. agreement distinction, but we do not expect multiple exponence to even be a uniform
phenomenon.
complex lead to a marked configuration that may effect a rule of feature deletion
that leads to the non-realization of plural clitics. Linearization and rules in the
Linear Operations module also specifically affect plural clitics, especially given the
effects of T-Peninitiality, which triggers Local Plural Metathesis, and the processes
of Long-Distance Plural Metathesis and Doubling that result in further displacement
(or copying) of clitics that follow the auxiliairy root.
While detailed analysis of both -e and -s has proved fruitful in different parts
of this book, this is not the case with -it-, the other piece of exponence that is
traditionally identified as a pluralizer in Basque auxiliaries. In our discussion of
this element in Sect. 3.5 in Chap. 3, we argue that, at least in Biscayan, -it- is not an
exponent realizing a separate terminal node, but part of different atomic exponents
realizing tense, agreement, and argument structure-related features in T. Crucially,
-it- does not seem to specifically mark plural number, since the exponents it is part of
can realize both person and number features, and it is systematically absent in some
contexts of plural agreement. For instance, -aitu- is a number-neutral exponent of
participant person, -(o)itu- realizes third person plural agreement (with variation
in its surface distribution), and none of the exponents specifically realizing past
tense T contain the string -it-. Therefore, our conclusion about this piece of Basque
inflection is rather negative, in that we have found no convincing evidence, at least
in the dialects studied in detail here, that it is a separable exponent of plural number.
7.2.2 A Recap: Why Clitics and Agreement

Must Be Distinguished in Basque
It should now be somewhat obvious that one cannot simply say the Basque
auxiliary shows agreement with up to three arguments and leave it at that. Such
agreement with the absolutive argument is seemingly realized in up to four places
(agreement in T and C, and in a fissioned clitic). Such agreement never shows
tense-varying allomorphy for the ergative argument. Finally, such agreement may
be affected in some places independently of otherswitness clitic Impoverishment
rules, which leave the realization of these features in the T node fully intact;
Metathesis, which radically alters the placement (and hence the apparent case
reflected by such elements) of clitics, but causes no such mismatches in true
agreement in T and C; and Fission, to which we turn below, noting that fissioned
plural clitics show no sensitivity to case, while secondary agreement (which truly is
secondary) on C is restricted to absolutive arguments.
We have insisted on a distinction between clitics and agreement in the analysis
of the Basque auxiliary complex, noting that clitics are tense-invariant (Sect. 3.3 in
Chap. 3), whereas the (primary) agreement element identified within the auxiliary
root is highly tense-dependent in terms of its allomorphic realization (Sect. 3.4 in
Chap. 3). We have also noted a major difference between agreement and clitics
in terms of the absence of accompanying arguments: when there is no relevant
argument of case C, there is no default clitic inserted in its absence. On the other
7.3 Crossmodular Structural Parallelism 365
hand, when there is no relevant argument of absolutive case that participates in

Agree-Link, default agreement must occur, inserting third person singular features
on T (Sect. 2.5 in Chap. 2).
A second syntactic difference between agreement and cliticization has to do
with sentences where two arguments trigger the relevant operation. In the case of
agreement, T establishes Agree-Link with both dative and absolutive arguments, a
case of Multiple Agree (Sect. 2.4.1 in Chap. 2). However, in the case of cliticization,
the result of both dative and absolutive participating is a syntactic crash, since the
Condition on Clitic Hosts prevents cliticization of both absolutive and dative clitics
to T; in some cases, however, a repair operation can trigger cliticization of the
absolutive to C (Sect. 2.3 in Chap. 2).
The postsyntactic realization of clitics and agreements show a wide range of di-
vergences. Consider, for example, first singular clitics, which postsyntactically lack
a [+participant] feature (and hence do not participate in Participant Dissimilation,
and undergo Ergative Metathesis in dialects such as Lekeitio where [+participant]
clitics do not always metathesize), thereby patterning distinctly from first plural and
second person clitics. At the same time, however, first singular patterns as a natural
class with all other participant -feature sets when it comes to the realization of
agreement (Sect. 4.3.2 in Chap. 4 and Sect. 5.4.1 in Chap. 5).
7.3 Crossmodular Structural Parallelism
At a number of points throughout this book we have compared the execution of

operations on morphosynactic features and terminals with operations on phonolog-
ical features and terminals (X-slots, or segments). This comparison is carried out
with an eye towards the understanding how Basque auxiliaries (and word-formation
strategies quite generally) might follow Crossmodular Structural Parallelism, a
hypothesis about the nature of human language that seeks to minimize differences
between levels that do not follow from a difference in alphabet. This research
program is explicitly characterized by Anderson (1992), and is most compactly
summed up as The core idea explored above is that the human mind has a unity of
design and an economy of mechanism, and thus employs highly similar mechanisms
and operates using formally identical principles across two seemingly different
domains of data: phonological features and -features (Nevins 2008:364). Cross-
comparison between the mechanisms at work in phonology, syntax, and morphology
has many roots in various works since the beginnings of generative grammar, in
many directions. Consider, by way of examples, the following pairwise parallelisms:
(4) Phonological theory informs syntactic theorya few examples from the
literature:
a. Feature geometry for internal arrangement of morphosyntactic features
(Starke 2001; Harley and Ritter 2002).
b. Feature-relativized locality in treatment of PCC (Nevins 2008).

c. Indendence of autosegmental tiers in levels of independent syntactic
representations (Williams 2003).
(5) Syntactic theory informs phonological theorya few examples from the
literature (see also Bermdez-Otero and Honeybone 2006 for relevant
discussion):
a. Arboreal representations of metrical stress (Halle and Vergnaud 1980).
b. Investigation of proper government and the Empty Category Principle
within phonology (Charette 1991).
c. Boundedness and minimality in syntactic locality applied to vowel
harmony (Nevins 2010).
(6) Phonological theory informs morphologyexamples from the present book:
a. In terms of formalism and treatment of features: Fission in phonology
and morphology (Chap. 3).
b. In terms of formalism and treatment of features: markedness and
Impoverishment (Chap. 4).
c. In terms of formalism and treatment of precedence-modifying oper-
ations: Metathesis and Reduplication in morphology and phonology
(Chap. 5).
d. Architectural formalism: division of labor between rules and con-
straints (Chaps. 4 and 5).
e. Architectural formalism: Lexical Phonology and Chap. 6.
Some of these have been raised in the work of Bonet (1991) with respect to feature
organization in morphology, and Noyer (1992) on the role of filters in morphological
combinations. We turn to a review of some of the specific comparisons in (6),
drawing on the relevant discussion in the preceding chapters, and pointing especially
to formalizations within this book that lead to a significant departure from the
mechanisms of classic DM (as summarized in, for example Harley and Noyer
1999).
7.3.1 Formalism and Features: Fission in Phonology

and Morphology
Fission became prominent in the analysis of Noyer (1992) of the prefixal vs. suffixal
exponents found in Semitic. In the Hebrew future/imperfect forms of main verbs,
a prefix expones person (P- for first, n- for first plural, t- for second, y- for third),
while a suffix expones number (-u for plural, except in the first person). In Noyers
analysis of these patterns, Fission is the result of the inventory of vocabulary entries,
and in particular, whether they are underspecified for features they realize (see
also Halle 1997). If a vocabulary entry PE1 matching a terminal node T Nx with
features [ F, G, H] only realizes [ F, G], then a second terminal-of-exponence
is spawned specifically with the purpose of attempting Vocabulary Insertion again

in order to realize the unmatched feature. In our model, the application of Fission
does not depend on which features are left overin fact, its effect is to create
a fully duplicated set of N 1 of the original N features to be exponed on T Nx .
Fission, in the current model, has nothing to do with the inventory of available
vocabulary entriesinstead, it operates prior to any Vocabulary Insertion, and is
sensitive only to the particular set of morphpsyntactic features on T Nx . In the case at
hand in Basque, the specific features to be separated into potentially discontinuous
positions of exponence are indeed person on one side, number on the otherbut
only for [author] persons. Rather than treating the fact that this particular person-
left/number-right split is not complete when it comes to [+author] terminals, we
affirm that this is the defining property of the rule itself: its function is to specifically
separate [author] persons from [singular] number, but leaving all other features
alonein fact creating a full clone of all other feature-values on T Nx onto the
fissioned morpheme T Nx .
This formulation of Fission, in terms of specific abstract feature-combinations
instead of in terms of the exponing vocabulary entries, allows one to pursue
crosslinguistic comparison among the antagonistic pairs of featuressomething
that would be nearly impossible if it were in terms of primary-exponing and
secondary-exponing vocabulary entries. The formulation of Basque clitic Fission
in terms of [author, singular] requiring separate terminals of exponence is
exactly the same one found in Semitic as well. In fact, our analysis also has the
property that neither T Nx or T Nx can be deemed primary or secondary, as they are
subject to Vocabulary Insertion in any specific derivational order with respect to each
other, neither is the head, and they bear the same overall number of features. Finally,
the mechanism for Fission adopted here, it should be said, is specifically informed
by the model of diphthongization or breaking found when a vowel segment bears a
specific combination of phonological feature-values: in Calabreses (1998) model of
such phenomena, diphthongization is the result of two antagonistic features that are
clefted into separate terminals/positions, with all other attendant features retaining
identical copies in both nodes.
7.3.2 Formalism and Features: Markedness

and Impoverishment
Impoverishment has been recognized as one of the mechanisms within DM for

accounting for syncretisms and syntax-morphology mismatches involving a neu-
tralization of a distinction for which there is evidence in the syntax (Bonet 1991;
Halle 1997; Noyer 1992, 1998; Bobaljik 2002; Harley 2008). Bonet 1991 raised
the possibility of formalizing Impoverishment in terms of autosegmental delinking,
thereby making an explicit connection between the effect of such rules in terms
of reducing structure (potentially in response to markedness), and thereby causing
neutralization. Noyer 1992 developed in detail the notion of morphological filters,
banning specific featural combinations, that could be turned on or off in particu-

lar languages in order to derive inventories, following Calabrese 1988. In the present
book, our focus on crossdialectal comparison has allowed us to take seriously
the possibility that Impoverishment involves considerations of morphological well-
formedness, specifically by factoring out the structural description of recurrent rules
into a constraint while the structural changes are factored into dialect-specific repair
rules.
This type of division of labor between rules and constraints finds particular
resonance with the phonological model of Calabrese (2005), who insists that while
conspiracies (of the sort identified in Kisseberth 1970) are robustly and recurrently
attested crosslinguistically, the suite of repair operations is often more insightfully
formalized in terms of a specific prescribed change to a configuration (i.e. a
rule), rather than through the interaction of, say, faithfulness constraints. To take
one very clear example from phonology, consider the constraint against hiatus, a
syntagmatic markedness configuration involving adjacent [+vocalic] nodes. While
recurrent in dozens of languages, the repair to such a configuration turns out to
be resolved in an astoundingly diverse array of mechanisms crosslinguistically
(and even intralinguistically; see Casali 1998)sometimes deleting the first vowel,
sometimes the second, sometimes the least sonorous, sometimes through glide
epenthesis, and sometimes through coalescence/fusioneven though the basic
structural description remains constant across these. In a highly parallel way, our
discussion of Participant Dissimilation and Plural Clitic Impoverishment in Chap. 4
involved a core syntagmatic markedness constraint holding essentially constant
pandialectally, with the locus of crossdialectal variation in the repertoire of deletion
rules that each variety has at its disposal.
7.3.3 Formalism: Metathesis/Reduplication in Morphology

and Phonology
The same effectiveness of a division of labor between morphotactic constraints and

repairs arose in our discussion of linearity-based requirements on the ordering of
morphemes. The particular focus on Noninitiality curiously enough began with
the observation that the second-position requirement within the auxiliary bears
resemblance to syntactic V2, and phrasal-level second-position effects, a point
recently raised in Anderson (2005), and one whose syntactic/intra-word parallelism
finds resonance Embicks (2010) notion of typed operations. In fact, however,
while our own analysis began with the notion of Noninitiality within the M-word,
the details of interactions in Root Reduplication and with modal particles made
it clear that the domain of T-Noninitiality is based on finer-grained distinctions in
word-interal structure defined in syntactic phrase-structural terms. This particular
set of facts leads one to the conclusion that syntactic phrase structure really is
necessary all the way down into words, in order to state the domain of certain
morphotactic constraints.
The specific morphotactic interactions involving linearity operations involved

the importance of the distinction between blocking constraints and triggering
constraints. For example, the T-Peninitiality constraint involves both triggering the
operation of Local Plural Metathesis and blocking the use of the plural clitic as
the moving element in Ergative Metathesis. Our analysis finds parallels in the work
of McCarthy (1986); Yip (1988) and Bakovic (2005), who examine the Obligatory
Contour Principle (OCP), where, in the phenomenon of antigemination, a rule of
syncope is blocked specifically when it would create geminates.
Finally, our adoption of the Harris and Halle 2005 formalism literally brings mor-
phological Metathesis closer to phonology, as it provides a specific implementation
for Embick and Noyers (2001) Local Dislocation operation, recasting this as no
longer a purely DM-internal operation, but rather a mechanism that enjoys reflexes
in cases of precedence-modifying operations in phonology (Raimy 2000).
7.3.4 Architectural Formalism: Lexical Phonology

and Modular Organization
Inspired by the principled division between lexical rules and postlexical rules as
separate modules with a fixed order and distinct properties within the phonological
component, we have pursued the hypothesis that the derivational ordering of
particular morphotactic processes can be predicted based on the properties of the
rules themselves.2 This derivational order makes predictions about rule interaction:
Absolutive Promotion, Participant Dissimilation and Ergative Metathesis in Basque
apply in separate modules, and their ordered application in word formation is as
predicted by a derivational theory. In this respect we deem it useful to compare
the overall architecture of a stratally ordered morphological component with the
stratal architecture of Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982; Hargus and Kaisse
1993), in which phonological computation is divided into two blocks. In Lexical
Phonologys division between lexical and postlexical rules, at least four important
differences are characterized: lexical rules apply only in derived environments, are
structure preserving, apply to lexical categories only, and may have exceptions,
whereas postlexical rules apply also to nonderived environments, may be non-
structure-preserving, may apply to all categories, and are automatic (i.e. blind to
lexical exceptions). The spirit of Lexical Phonologys predictive nature was that
by inspecting whether a rule had these properties or not, one could then conclude
whether it was in the lexical or postlexical block, and thereby, since all lexical
rules precede all postlexical rules, impose a predictive order on the interaction
of the varied phonological processes within a language. Our model in this book,
2 In fact, in Chap. 3 we devote a considerable amount of space to a complete phonology of the
auxiliary system, which itself shows some rules that are lexical and some are postlexical according
to Hualdes (1991a) overview of these strata within Biscayan phonology.
exemplified for Basque auxiliaries, bears the same goal: by inspecting whether a
morphological operation relevant for the word formation process has some one set
of properties or another, its assignment to a submodule of grammar allows for a
principled determination of its order relative to other such processes.
7.3.5 Interim Conclusion
Taken in its strongest form, one could argue that the computations underlying
Impoverishment, Obliteration, Fission, and Metathesis/Doubling in morphology
and in phonology differ only in the alphabet of data structures to which they
apply. This is certainly an unorthodox hypothesis, and it is driven by the goal
of a higher-order synthesis between linguistic phenomena, wherein the attempt
to track as closely as possible the morphosyntactic phenomena of neutralization,
multiple exponence, and dislocation in tandem with the conditions on phonological
markedness, diphthongization, and metathesis is a unique effort, and one whose
success will ultimately be measured in terms of its empirical accuracy.
7.4 On the Methodological Cycle Between Cross-Dialectal

Breadth and Depth
Changes in phonological systems may reveal ordinarily hidden

structure, as a tiger lurking on the edge of a jungle, his stripes
blending in with the background, becomes visible the moment
he begins to move.
Paul Kiparsky
We wish to close this book with reflections on the path of research inquiry that
has borne us to this point. Our collaboration started on a windy morning in
Cambridge, MA during which Karlos pointed out to Andrew what looked like
a few idiosyncratic facts about the Biscayan variety he knew bestOndarru, in
which a few seemingly arbitrary gaps in the combinatorial paradigm of ergative and
absolutive arguments yielded certain unexpected mismatches between syntax and
morphology. Once these two researchers formulated a preliminary formalism and
set of ideas to capture this particular phenomenon, they had the seemingly innocent
idea of consulting de Yrizars (1992b) compendium of auxiliary verb forms under
the range of argument combinatorics, and found that this restriction in the expression
of certain persons in the context of others enjoyed a recurrent presence, previously
uninvestigated and never before treated as a unitary phenomenon, in a swath of
dialects throughout Biscay. This led to a focus on six dialects in particular, of which
Zamudio turned out to be the most intriguing in terms of its range of gaps and
unexpected substitutions to the configuration of Participant Dissimilation (recall
7.4 On the Methodological Cycle Between Cross-Dialectal Breadth and Depth 371
Sect. 4.6 in Chap. 4), and which brought us to this town for fieldwork on the auxiliary
system. While examining Zamudio, a number of aspects in its auxiliary roots
distribution of allomorphs (as discussed, for example, in Sect. 3.4.3 in Chap. 3) led
to thinking further about the Person Case Constraint in Basque in general, perhaps
as a consequence of its clitic system and the syntax of clitic hosts. With respect to
the PCC, the pattern of syntactic cliticization found in Ondarru, with its Absolutive
Promotion (Sect. 2.3.2 in Chap. 2), in turn, yields a configuration in which the
position to the left of T is vacated, and must be satisfied for T-Noninitiality, a
constraint found throughout Basque, but with microvariation in repairs yielding
a conspiracy of operations (Sects. 5.45.6 in Chap. 5). This research also led to
detailed investigation of an apparent case of morpheme displacement in the variety
of Lekeitio, which allowed us to reach the perhaps surprising conclusion that not
all auxiliary-initial occurrences in which clitics double noninternal arguments are
due to linear operations (see below), and also helped us to develop an analysis
of agreement in terms of syntactic Agree-Link and postsyntactic Agree-Copy
This brief chronology highlights the constant and periodic zooming in and out
of dialect-specific and crossdialectally shared phenomena that leads to developing
a balance between strong empirical coverage of one dialect, while at the same time
imposes limits on the parochiality of a formalism that may be underconstrained or
overfitted to just one dialect, thereby yielding a pull in the direction of generality of
analysis.
As a general methodological envoi for future work, therefore, we believe it is very
fruitful to establish generalizations through broad inspection of dialects, followed by
a focus on specific ones to develop analyses, followed by returning back to broad
inspection of dialects for reigning in the crossdialectal viability of such analyses,
followed by another iteration of the cycle. This helps one figure out whether a given
pattern in a specific dialect is not idiosyncratic/specific to this dialect, whereas at the
same time, the detailed and complete analysis of one, or a small handful of dialects,
shows that the theory has the expressive power and ability to yield insight once full
analyses are given. In what follows, we wish to highlight specific phenomena in
which this methodology has been useful, as well as identifying areas in which such
a strategy may continue to be fruitful with yet unexplored or unresolved questions
in Basque auxiliary exponence.
The morphology of the plural clitic (-e in Biscayan) both in its pandialectal
and dialect particular properties provides several illustrations of the usefulness
of this methodology. The fact that it never coreferences a third plural absolutive
argument in any dialect of Basque, paired with the idea that third person absolutive
arguments never cliticize, lead us to the hypothesis that this plural morpheme is
the exponent of a plural feature in pronominal clitics. In developing a detailed
analysis of this split in person and number exponence in three Biscayan varieties,
we adopted a particular implementation of the DM operation of Fission whereby it
specifically targets two features ([author] and [singular]) by separating them into
two nodes that otherwise share all other features of the original node (see discussion
in Sect. 7.3.1 above). The result is that the postsyntactic terminal node exponed by
-e throughout Biscayan is in fact not just a plural morpheme; it is also specified

for person ([participant]) and case features, which vary depending on the feature
specification of the fissioned clitic. This, in turn leads to a natural explanation of
a common allomorphy found in dialects other than Biscayan, where -te alternates
with -e. Detailed study of these exponents in some Guipuscoan varieties confirmed
this hypothesis: the distribution of these allomorphs depends largely on the person
and case features of the fissioned clitic, a particularly clear case being the variety of
Berastegi (Sect. 3.3.4 in Chap. 3).
The placement of this plural clitic in the auxiliary is in most cases straightfor-
ward: it is right-adjacent to the person clitic it is split from. However, a particularly
salient problem for any detailed analysis of the phenomenon is the fact that it is
never adjacent to the person clitic in the absolutive in any dialect. This lead to a
search for both a principled explanation in terms of a T-Peninitiality constraint that
interacts in interesting ways with T-Noninitiality, but also to the hypothesis that
the plural clitic can participate in morpheme displacement operations (Sect. 5.3 in
Chap. 5). Independent evidence came from several Biscayan varieties, where the
plural clitic systematically surfaces further to the right than expected. Detailed
inverstigation of the phenomenon in these varieties revealed a hallmark of the
Generalized Reduplication implementation of morpheme displacement adopted
here: the fact that while in some dialects the plural clitic is simply displaced to
the right (Ibarrangelu) without preserving an in-situ copy, in others it is copied in
a right-peripheral position (Kortezubi). These three properties of plural -e/te (its
clitic origin, Fission and allomorphy, and placement) are intimately related to each
other, and our reseach in this topic benefited greatly from both detailed analysis of
specific dialects and from pandialectal search for nonaccidental patterns predicted
by the underlying theory.
This research on the position of plural clitics was part of a larger project dealing
with morpheme displacement phenomena and their implementation in terms of rules
and constraints. Chief among the constraints is T-Noninitiality, which provides an
important ingredient in our analysis of Ergative Metathesis, predicting that the latter
operation is one of several possible morpheme displacements triggered as a repair
to this constraint. One of the better studied repairs is generically known in the
literature as dative displacement, of which the Biscayan varieties of Lekeitio and
Oati provide clear examples. As shown in Sect. 5.6 in Chap. 5, the so-called dative
displacements in these two dialects are in fact examples of different phenomena:
while in Oati it is a genuine case of T-Noninitiality-triggered displacement (and
copying), in Lekeitio it is a very different phenomenon due to Impoverishment
that has an effect on postsyntactic Agree-Copy. This phenomenon was instrumental
in including Lekeitio, together with Ondarru and Zamudio, in the list of Biscayan
auxiliary systems for which this book offers an exhaustive analysis.
The contrast between Lekeitio and Oati led to a typology of dative displace-
ments in Basque, where the different operations involved (Metathesis/Doubling
vs. Impoverishment and Agree-Copy) predict different properties, both in the
presence vs. absence of clitic copying, and in effects on agreement realization. A
search for confirmation of the hypothesis within Biscayan yielded the interesting
7.4 On the Methodological Cycle Between Cross-Dialectal Breadth and Depth 373
result that Basauri displays both types of dative displacement, with concomitant
differences in copying and agreement, in a single auxiliary system. However,
much more work needs to be done in establishing this typology. So-called dative
displacement is a relatively well-known common phenomenon in some dialectal
areas, including Biscayan (de Azkue 1925:539) and Labourdin (Lafitte 1944:296).3
Detailed investigation of the phenomenon in Labourdin was not possible for
this book, as the morphology of its auxiliaries is quite different from Biscayan,
especially in connection with the realization of agreement in the root, an important
element in the typology predicted by our theory. We hope to come back to this issue
in future work, where detailed analyses of Labourdin auxiliary systems might lead
to further hypotheses to be tested in other dialects.
Related to the previous point, an important part of our analysis of the Lekeitio
pattern is the hypothesis that T in Basque effects agreement with both absolutive
and dative arguments, but that a postsyntactic filter (the Condition on Agree-
Copy) results in the surfacing of only absolutive agreement in most dialects.
This multiple agreement is visible in Lekeitio and other varieties with apparent
dative displacement, implemented here as Impoverishment and competition for
the realization of the T node (Sect. 2.4.2 in Chap. 2 and Sect. 3.4.4 in Chap. 3).
However, given the potential for dialectal variation in postsyntactic Impoverishment
and conditions on Agree-Copy, we might expect there to be further variation
in the realization of multiple agreement, even in terms of split nodes realizing
agreement with different arguments. This suggests additional future work into the
phenomenon, where investigation of other dialects might uncover further evidence
for our analysis, or, indeed, its refutation and search for alternatives.
Allocutive clitics play an important role in providing evidence for some parts
of our analysis, such as Have-Insertion (Sect. 3.4.1 in Chap. 3) and the typology
of T-Noninitiality repairs (Sect. 5.6.3 in Chap. 5). However, we have not carried
out an in depth analysis of their morphosyntax and morphophonology, mainly
due to the fact that the phenomenon is (virtually) absent in the three Biscayan
varieties we concentrate on in this book, related to the loss of the formal/colloquial
distinction in the second person.4 We have thus only been able to scratch the
surface of the theoretical relevance of this typologically rare feature of Basque
grammar, which includes questions about the representation and markedness of -
features, the syntax of nonargumental clitics, the interaction of allocutive clitics with
postsyntactic operations that specifically target participant clitics (e.g. Participant
3 Itsprominence in the Labourdin coast lead to the adoption of the prescriptive term solcisme
de la cte solecism of the coast by Lafitte (whose very insightful work on Basque grammar
had both descriptive and prescriptive objectives), as they are contraires au courant gnral de la
langue basque (Lafitte 1944:296; our translation: they go against the general current of the Basque
language). Any confusion between direct and indirect object marking in Basque sentences is
typically frowned upon by prescriptivists, whose descriptions of these solecisms can often guide
theoretical linguists in their search for theoretically relevant patterns.
4 The loss of allocutive clitics in many Biscayan dialects seems to be part of a more general pattern
of loss throughout Basque, even in areas where the phenomenon is still in common use (e.g. Azkue
Ibarbia 2000). This only emphasizes the pressing need to do further work on the topic.
Dissimilation in Chap. 4), as well as their placement within the auxiliary complex,
which seems to be subject to a great deal of dialectal variation. Future research into
allocutive clitics from a cross-dialectal perspective may shed light on these and other
theoretical issues.
We wish to close by pointing out that de Yrizars compilation of auxiliary
forms in all Basque dialects (the four works listed in the Bibliography are just
seven volumes of the total of fourteen in this compendium) is now online, at
http://www.euskaltzaindia.net/mvav, and thus in principle digitally searchable. This
greater availability of data from lesser-studied varieties, combined with a theoretical
framework rooted in navigating the loci of crossdialectal variation, have the
potential to lead to many more studies of the sort we have attempted here. We view
our work as a step in developing the tools for further inquiry into those varieties
of Basque that we could not treat in this book, as they hold the power to bestir
revisions, reflections and extensions of the theory developed herein.
Appendix A
Indicative Auxiliary Paradigms
This appendix contains all the indicative paradigms of auxiliary verbs in Lekeitio,
Ondarru, and Zamudio. Most of the forms are from our main sources for these
three varieties: Hualde et al. (1994:117135) for Lekeitio, field work notes for
Ondarru, and both Gaminde (2000:371385) and field work notes for Zamudio.
Forms missing from these sources are from de Yrizar (1992b:Vol. 1, 87141,
213232, 583625). The latter are given in italics in the tables.
In consulting the tables, the reader should take into account the following
conventions (all designed to facilitate reading):
These are matrix sentence forms. Forms appearing in embedded sentences are
fully recoverable from these (Sect. 2.6 in Chap. 2).
In each cell, the topmost form is from Lekeitio, followed by Ondarru, followed
by Zamudio.
Unlike most examples given in the rest of the book, the auxiliaries are in their
surface form (and do not take into account phonological rules that apply across
word boundaries). Each form is parsed into its component morpheme exponents,
which in many cases involves arbitrary decisions on whether to include an
epenthetic segment to the left or to the right of a morpheme boundary.
Morpheme exponents that surface as null due to phonological rule are represented
as such (0).
/ The same notation is used for the third person ergative clitic exponent
(when it is not -o) and for the null exponent of the auxiliary-initial L-morpheme.
Other morphemes realized as (underlying) null morphemes are not taken into
account. For instance, present tense (matrix) auxiliaries have a null C morpheme
(as opposed to -n in the past tense), but this is not represented in the forms in the
tables. Similarly, we do not represent instances of the plural clitic (-e) absent on
the surface due to Impoverishment.

and Linguistic Theory 86, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3889-8,
376 A Indicative Auxiliary Paradigms
Each table is preceded by one or several templates labeling each exponent in

the sequence. For ease of exposition, the plural clitic, [+M] complementizer
agreement, and the past tense complementizer are labeled as -e, -s, and -n,
respectively.
Some tables follow more than one template, due to morphological operations
such as First Dative Impoverishment (Sect. 2.4.2 in Chap. 2), Ergative Metathesis
(Sect. 5.4 in Chap. 5), and Root Reduplication (Sect. 5.7.2 in Chap. 5). The label
ClAbs/Dat is a shorthand for a dative clitic that undergoes First Dative Impover-
ishment and therefore surfaces in absolutive form and position (Tables A.4A.5).
Table A.1 Nonapplicative

ClAbs /L T eAbs s n
intransitive auxiliary
Absolutive Present Past
First singular n-as n-itz-an
n-as n-itx-an
n-as n-itz-en
First plural g-ara g-ii-an
g-as g-ia-n
g-ara g-intz-e(s-a)n
Second singular s-ara s-ii-an
s-as s-ia-n
s-ara g-intz-en
Second plural s-ari-e s-ii-e-n
s-as-e s-i-e-n
s-ari-e s-intz-ie-n
Third singular d-a s-a-n
d-a s-a-n
d-a s-a-n
Third plural d-ira(-s) s-iri-an
d-i(-s) s-i-n
d-ire(-s) s-ire-n
A Indicative Auxiliary Paradigms 377
Table A.2 Applicative intransitive auxiliary

L T ClDat eDat s n
Present Past
Dative 3Sg absolutive 3Pl absolutive 3Sg absolutive 3Pl absolutive
First singular dx-a-t dx-a-ra-s dx-a-t-en dx-a-ra-s-en
g-a-sta d-a-sta-s g-a-sta-n g-a-sta-as-en
d-a-t d-a-t-es y-a-t-en y-a-t-es-an
First plural dx-a-ku dx-a-ku-s dx-a-ku-n dx-a-ku-s-en
g-a-sku g-a-sku-s g-a-sku-n g-a-sku-s-en
d-a-ku d-a-ku-s y-a-ku-n y-a-ku-s-en
Second singular dx-a-tzu dx-a-tzu-s dx-a-tzu-n dx-a-tzu-s-en
g-a-tzu g-a-tzu-s g-a-tzu-n g-a-tzu-s-en
d-a-tzu d-a-tzu-s y-a-tzu-n y-a-tzu-s-en
Second plural dx-a-tzu-e dx-a-tzu-e-s dx-a-tzu-e-n dx-a-tzu-e-s-en
g-a-tzu-e g-a-tzu-e-s g-a-tzu-e-n g-a-tzu-e-s-en
d-a-tzu-e d-a-tzu-e-s y-a-tzu-e-n y-a-tzu-e-s-an
Third singular dx-a-ko dx-a-ko-s dx-a-ko-n dx-a-ko-s-en
g-a-ko g-a-ko-s g-a-ko-n g-a-ko-s-en
d-a-ko d-a-ko-s y-a-ko-n y-a-ko-s-an
Third plural dx-a-k-e dx-a-k-e-s dx-a-k-e-n dx-a-k-e-s-en
g-a-ko-e g-a-ko-e-s g-a-ko-e-n g-a-ko-e-s-en
d-a-k-ie d-a-k-ie-s y-a-k-ie-n y-a-k-ie-s-an
Table A.3 Present tense monotransitive auxiliary

ClAbs /L T eAbs ClErg eErg s
Absolutive
Ergative 1 singular 1 plural 2 singular 2 plural 3 singular 3 plural
1Sg X X s-aitxu-t s-aitxu-e-t d-o-t d-o-ra-s
X X s-atxu-t s-atxu-e-t d-o-t d-otxu-a-s
X X s-aitu-t s-aitu-e-t d-o-t d-o-t-es
1Pl X X s-aitxu-gu s-aitxu-gu d-o-gu d-o-gu-s
X X s-atxu-au s-atxu-au d-o-u d-o-u-s
X X s-ara s-ari-e d-0-u
/ d-0-u-s
/
2Sg n-a-su g-aitxu-su(-s) X X d-o-su d-o-su-s
n-a-su d-o-su X X d-o-su d-o-su-s
n-o-su g-o-su-s X X d-o-su d-o-su-s
2Pl n-a-su-e g-aitxu-su-e(-s) X X d-o-su-e d-o-su-e-s
n-a-su-e d-o-su-e X X d-o-su-e d-o-su-e-s
n-o-su-e g-o-su-e-s X X d-o-su-e d-o-su-e-s
3Sg n-au-0/ g-aitxu-0(-s)
/ s-aitxu-0(-s)
/ s-aitxu-e-0/ d-au-0/ d-itxu-0-s
/
n-au-0/ g-atxu-0(-s)
/ s-atxu-0/ s-atxu-e-0/ d-au-0/ d-otxu-0-s
/
n-eu-0/ g-aitu-0/ s-aitu-0-s
/ s-aitu-e-0/ d-eu-0/ d-itu-0(-s)
/
3Pl n-ab-0-e
/ g-aitxu-0-e(-s)
/ s-aitxu-0-e
/ s-aitxu-0-
/ 0-e
/ d-ab-0-e
/ d-ab-0-e-s
/
n-ab-0-e
/ g-atxu-0-e
/ s-atxu-0-e
/ s-atxu-0-
/ 0-e
/ d-ab-0-e
/ d-otxu-0-e-s
/
n-eu-0-re
/ g-aitu-0-e
/ s-aitu-0-e
/ s-aitu-0-
/ 0-e
/ d-eu-0-re
/ d-itu-0-e(-s)
/
378 A Indicative Auxiliary Paradigms
Table A.4 Present tense ditransitive auxiliary (third singular absolutive)

L T ClDat eDat ClErg eErg
Forms with First Dative Impoverishment (Lekeitio): ClAbs/Dat T ClErg eErg s
Dative
Ergative 1 singular 1 plural 2 singular 2 plural 3 singular 3 plural
1Sg X X d-o-tzu-t d-o-tzu-e-t d-o-tza-t d-o-tza-t-e
X X d-o-tzu-t d-o-tzu-e-t d-o-tza-t d-o-tz-e-t
X X d-o-tzu-t d-o-tzu-e-t d-o-tze-t d-o-tz-ie-t
1Pl X X d-o-tzu-gu d-o-tzu-gu d-o-tza-gu d-o-tza-gu
X X d-o-tzu-au d-o-tzu-au d-o-tza-u d-o-tza-u
X X d-a-tzu d-a-tzu-e d-o-tz-u d-o-tz-u
2Sg n-a-su g-aitxu-su X X d-o-tza-su d-o-tza-su
d-o-sta-su d-o-su X X d-o-tza-su d-o-tza-su
d-o-ste-su d-o-su X X d-o-tze-su d-o-tze-su
2Pl n-a-su-e g-aitxu-su-e X X d-o-tza-su-e d-o-tza-su-e
d-o-sta-su-e d-o-su-e X X d-o-tza-su-e d-o-tza-su-e
d-o-ste-su-e d-o-su-e X X d-o-tze-su-e d-o-tze-su-e
3Sg n-au-0/ g-aitxu-0(-s)
/ d-o-tzu-0/ d-o-tzu-e-0/ d-o-tz-o d-o-tz-e-0/
d-o-sta-0/ d-o-sku-0/ d-o-tzu-0/ d-o-tzu-e-0/ d-o-tza-0/ d-o-tza-0/
d-o-st-0/ d-o-sku-0/ d-o-tzu-0/ d-o-tzu-e-0/ d-o-tz-o d-o-tz-ie-0/
3Pl n-ab-0-e
/ g-aitxu-0-e
/ d-o-tzu-0-e
/ d-o-tzu-0-
/ 0-e
/ d-o-tz-0-e
/ d-o-tz-0-
/ 0-e
/
d-o-st-0-e
/ d-o-sku-0-e
/ d-o-tzu-0-e
/ d-o-tzu-0-
/ 0-e
/ d-o-tz-0-e
/ d-o-tz-0-e
/
d-o-st-0-ie
/ d-o-sku-0-e
/ d-o-tzu-0-e
/ d-o-tzu-0-
/ 0-e
/ d-o-tz-0-ie
/ d-o-tz-0-
/ 0-ie
/
Table A.5 Present tense ditransitive auxiliary (third plural absolutive)
L T ClDat eDat ClErg eErg s
Forms with First Dative Impoverishment (Lekeitio): ClAbs/Dat T ClErg eErg s
Dative
Ergative First singular First plural Second singular Second plural Third singular Third plural
First singular X X d-o-tzu-ra-s d-o-tzu-e-ra-s d-o-tza-ra-s d-o-tza-t-e-s
X X d-o-tzu-t d-o-tzu-e-t d-o-tza-t d-o-tz-e-t
X X d-o-tzu-t-es d-o-tzu-e-t-as d-o-tze-a-s d-o-tz-ie-t-as
A Indicative Auxiliary Paradigms
First plural X X d-o-tzu-gu-s d-o-tzu-gu-s d-o-tza-gu-s d-o-tza-gu-s

X X d-o-tzu-au-s d-o-tzu-au-s d-o-tza-u-s d-o-tza-u-s
X X d-a-tzu-s d-a-tzu-e-s d-o-tz-u-s d-o-tz-u-s
Second singular n-a-su-s g-aitxu-su-s X X d-o-tza-su-s d-o-tza-su-s
d-o-sta-su-s d-o-su-s X X d-o-tza-su-s d-o-tza-su-s
d-o-ste-su-s d-o-su-s X X d-o-tze-su-s d-o-tze-su-s
Second plural n-a-su-e-s g-aitxu-su-e-s X X d-o-tza-su-e-s d-o-tza-su-e-s
d-o-sta-su-e-s d-o-su-e-s X X d-o-tza-su-e-s d-o-tza-su-e-s
d-o-ste-su-e-s d-o-su-e-s X X d-o-tze-su-e-s d-o-tze-su-e-s
Third singular n-itxu-0-s
/ g-aitxu-0-s
/ d-o-tzu-0-s
/ d-o-tzu-e-0-s
/ d-o-tz-o-s d-o-tz-e-0-s
/
d-o-sta-0-s
/ d-o-sku-0-s
/ d-o-tzu-0-s
/ d-o-tzu-e-0-s
/ d-o-tza-0-s
/ d-o-tza-0-s
/
d-o-st-0-es
/ d-o-sku-0-s
/ d-o-tzu-0-s
/ d-o-tzu-e-0-s
/ d-o-tz-o-s d-o-tz-ie-0-s/
Third plural n-ab-0-e-s
/ g-aitxu-0-e-s
/ d-o-tzu-0-e-s
/ d-o-tzu-0-
/ 0-e-s
/ d-o-tz-0-e-s
/ d-o-tz-0-
/ 0-e-s
/
d-o-st-0-e-s
/ d-o-sku-0-e-s
/ d-o-tzu-0-e-s
/ d-o-tzu-0-
/ 0-e-s
/ d-o-tz-0-e-s
/ d-o-tz-0-e-s
/
d-o-st-0-ie-s
/ d-o-sku-0-e-s
/ d-o-tzu-0-e-s
/ d-o-tzu-0-
/ 0-e-s
/ d-o-tz-0-ie-s
/ d-o-tz-0-
/ 0-ie-s
/
379
380
Table A.6 Past tense monotransitive auxiliary

ClAbs T eAbs ClErg eErg s n
Forms with Ergative Metathesis: ClErg T eErg s n
Absolutive
First singular X X s-aitxu-t-en s-aitxu-e-t-en n-eb-an n-eb-as-an
X X s-iddu-da-s-en s-iddu-da-s-en n-eb-an n-eb-an
X X s-endu-da-s-an s-endu-e-da-s-an n-eu-en n-eu-s-en
First plural X X s-aitxu-gu-n s-aitxu-e-gu-n g-endu-an g-endu-s-an
X X s-iddu-gu-s-en s-iddu-gu-s-en g-endu-n g-endu-n
X X s-endu-gu-s-an s-endu-e-gu-s-an g-endu-n g-endu-s-en
Second singular n-a-su-n g-aitxu-su-n X X s-endu-an s-endu-s-an
n-iddu-su-n s-endu-n X X s-endu-n s-endu-n
n-endu-su-n g-endu-su-n X X s-endu-n s-endu-s-en
Second plural n-a-su-e-n g-aitxu-su-e-n X X s-endu-e-n s-endu-e-s-en
n-iddu-su-e-n s-endu-e-n X X s-endu-e-n s-endu-e-n
n-endu-su-e-n g-endu-su-e-n X X s-endu-e-n s-endu-e-s-an
Third singular n-ab-0-en
/ g-aitxu-0-s-en
/ s-aitxu-0-n
/ s-aitxu-e-0-n
/ 0-eb-an
/ 0-eb-as-an
/
n-itxu-0-n
/ g-iddu-0-n
/ s-iddu-0-s-en
/ s-iddu-0-s-en
/ 0-eb-an
/ 0-eb-an
/
n-endu-0-n/ g-endu-0-s-en
/ s-endu-0-s-en
/ s-endu-e-0-s-an
/ 0-eu-en
/ 0-eu-s-en
/
Third plural n-ab-0-e-n
/ g-aitxu-0-s-e-n
/ s-aitxu-0-e-n
/ s-aitxu-0-
/ 0-e-n
/ 0-eb-e-n
/ 0-eb-e-s-en
/
n-itxu-0-e-n
/ g-iddu-0-e-n
/ s-iddu-0-e-s-en
/ s-iddu-0-e-s-en
/ 0-eb-e-n
/ 0-eb-e-n
/
n-endu-0-e-n
/ g-endu-0-e-s-an
/ s-endu-0-e-s-an
/ s-endu-0-
/ 0-e-s-an
/ 0-eu-re-n
/ 0-eu-re-s-an
/
Table A.7 Past tense ditransitive auxiliary (third singular absolutive)
L T ClDat eDat ClErg eErg n
Forms with Ergative Metathesis: ClErg T ClDat eDat eErg n
Forms with Root Reduplication (Ondarru): L T ClDat ClErg T eErg n
Dative
First singular X X n-eu-tzu-n n-eu-tzu-e-n n-eu-tza-n n-eu-tz-e-n
X X n-e-tzu-n n-e-tzu-e-n n-e-tza-n n-e-tz-e-n
X X n-eun-tzu-n n-eun-tzu-e-n n-eun-tze-n n-eun-tz-ie-n

First plural X X 0-eu-tzu-gu-n
/ 0-eu-tzu-gu-n
/ 0-eu-tza-gu-n
/ 0-eu-tza-gu-n
/
X X g-en-tzu-n g-en-tzu-e-n g-en-tza-n g-en-tza-n
X X y-a-tzu-n y-a-tzu-e-n g-eun-tz-en g-eun-tz-ie-n
Second singular 0-eu-sta-su-n
/ 0-eu-sku-su-n
/ X X 0-eu-tza-su-n
/ 0-eu-tza-su-n
/
d-o-sta-s-endu-n s-endu-n X X s-en-tza-n s-en-tza-n
0-o-ste-su-n
/ s-endu-n X X s-eun-tze-n s-eun-tz-ie-n
Second plural 0-eu-sta-su-e-n
/ 0-eu-sku-su-e-n
/ X X 0-eu-tza-su-e-n
/ 0-eu-tza-su-e-n
/
d-o-sta-s-endu-e-n s-endu-e-n X X s-en-tz-e-n s-en-tz-e-n
0-o-ste-su-e-n
/ s-endu-e-n X X s-eun-tz-ie-n s-eun-tz-0-ie-n
/
Third singular 0-eu-sta-
/ 0-n
/ 0-eu-sku-
/ 0-n
/ 0-eu-tzu-n
/ 0-eu-tzu-e-n
/ 0-eu-tza-n
/ 0-eu-tz-e-n
/
d-o-sta-0-n
/ d-o-sku-0-n
/ d-o-tzu-n d-o-tzu-e-n d-o-tza-n d-o-tz-e-n
0-o-ste-
/ 0-n
/ 0-o-sku-
/ 0-n
/ 0-o-tzu-n
/ 0-o-tzu-e-n
/ 0-o-tze-n
/ 0-o-tz-ie-n
/
Third plural 0-eu-st-
/ 0-e-n
/ 0-eu-sku-
/ 0-e-n
/ 0-eu-tzu-e-n
/ 0-eu-tzu-
/ 0-e-n
/ 0-eu-tz-e-n
/ 0-eu-tz-
/ 0-e-n
/
d-o-st-0-e-n
/ d-o-sku-0-e-n
/ d-o-tzu-e-n d-o-tzu-0-e-n
/ d-o-tz-e-n d-o-tz-0-e-n
/
0-o-st-
/ 0-ie-n
/ 0-o-sku-
/ 0-e-n
/ 0-o-tzu-e-n
/ 0-o-tzu-
/ 0-e-n
/ 0-o-tz-ie-n
/ 0-o-tz-
/ 0-ie-n
/
381
382
Table A.8 Past tense ditransitive auxiliary (third plural absolutive)

L T ClDat eDat ClErg eErg s n
Forms with Ergative Metathesis: ClErg T ClDat eDat eErg s n
Forms with Root Reduplication (Ondarru): L T ClDat ClErg T eErg n
Dative
First singular X X n-eu-tzu-s-an n-eu-tzu-e-s-en n-eu-tza-s-an n-eu-tz-e-s-en
X X n-e-tzu-n n-e-tzu-e-n n-e-tza-n n-e-tz-e-n
X X n-eun-tzu-s-en n-eun-tzu-e-s-an n-eun-tze-s-an n-eun-tz-ie-s-an
First plural X X 0-eu-tzu-gu-s-an
/ 0-eu-tzu-e-gu-s-an
/ 0-eu-tza-gu-s-an
/ 0-eu-tza-gu-s-en
/
X X g-en-tzu-n g-en-tzu-e-n g-en-tza-n g-en-tza-n
X X g-eun-tzu-s-an g-eun-tzu-e-s-an g-eun-tze-s-an g-eun-tz-ie-s-an
Second singular 0-eu-sta-su-s-an
/ 0-eu-sku-su-s-an
/ X X 0-eu-tza-su-s-an
/ 0-eu-tza-su-s-en
/
d-o-sta-s-endu-n s-endu-n X X s-en-tza-n s-en-tza-n
0-o-ste-su-s-en
/ s-endu-s-en X X s-eun-tze-s-an s-eun-tz-ie-s-an
Second plural 0-eu-sta-su-e-s-en
/ 0-eu-sku-su-e-s-en
/ X X 0-eu-tza-su-e-s-en
/ 0-eu-tza-su-e-s-en
/
d-o-sta-s-endu-e-n s-endu-e-n X X s-en-tz-e-n s-en-tz-e-n
0-o-ste-su-e-s-an
/ s-endu-e-s-an X X s-eun-tz-ie-s-an s-eun-tz-0-ie-s-an
/
Third singular 0-eu-sta-
/ 0-s-an
/ 0-eu-sku-
/ 0-s-an
/ 0-eu-tzu-s-an
/ 0-eu-tzu-e-s-en
/ 0-eu-tza-s-an
/ 0-eu-tz-e-s-en
/
d-o-sta-0-n
/ d-o-sku-0-n
/ d-o-tzu-n d-o-tzu-e-n d-o-tza-n d-o-tz-e-n
0-o-ste-
/ 0-s-an
/ 0-o-sku-
/ 0-s-en
/ 0-o-tzu-s-en
/ 0-o-tzu-e-s-an
/ 0-o-tze-s-an
/ 0-o-tz-ie-s-an
/
Third plural 0-eu-st-
/ 0-e-s-en
/ 0-eu-sku-
/ 0-e-s-en
/ 0-eu-tzu-e-s-en
/ 0-eu-tzu-
/ 0-e-s-en
/ 0-eu-tz-e-s-en
/ 0-eu-tz-
/ 0-e-s-en
/
d-o-st-0-e-n
/ d-o-sku-0-e-n
/ d-o-tzu-e-n d-o-tzu-0-e-n
/ d-o-tz-e-n d-o-tz-0-e-n
/
0-o-st-
/ 0-ie-s-an
/ 0-o-sku-
/ 0-s-en
/ 0-o-tzu-e-s-an
/ 0-o-tzu-
/ 0-e-s-an
/ 0-o-tz-ie-s-an
/ 0-o-tz-
/ 0-ie-s-an
/
Appendix B
Dialect Classification
This appendix provides a classification of all the local varieties of Basque discussed
in this book. Table B.2 is based on de Yrizars (de Yrizar 1991, 1992a,b; De Yrizar
1997) classification in terms of dialect, subdialect, variety, and subvariety. The
rightmost cell in each row points to places in de Yrizars work with detailed
descriptions of the indicative auxiliary paradigms of the corresponding subvariety.
In Table B.2, we have translated into English certain Spanish terms used by
de Yrizar in naming the different (sub)dialects and (sub)varieties as follows: Bis-
cayan (Vizcano), Eastern (Oriental), Eastern Coast (Costa Oriental), Guipus-
coan (Guipuzcoano), High Navarrese (Alto-Navarro), Labourdin (Labortano),
Navarrese (Navarro), Northeastern (Nororiental), Northwestern (Norocciden-
tal), Northern (Septentrional), Proper (Propio/a), Southern (Meridional), and
Western (Occidental). We have also translated his Spanish or French names for
different places into their Basque equivalents. Most of these translations are given
in the first pages of de Yrizars volumes (1991:Vol. 1, vii, 1992a:Vol. 1, vviii,
1992b:Vol. 1, viiviii, 1997:751754). We provide in Table B.1 a list of translations
not found in those volumes.
Table B.1 Place names in

Basque de Yrizar
de Yrizars work and their
Basque equivalents Alboniga Albniga
Andoain Andoin
Burunda La Burunda
Butroi Butrn
Ispaster Ispster
Ondarru Ondrroa

384 B Dialect Classification
Table B.2 Classification of Basque varieties discussed in this book

Dialect Subdialect Variety Subvariety de Yrizar
Ahetze Labourdin Proper Sara Ahetze 1997:109131
Alboniga Biscayan Western Bermeo Western 1992b:Vol. 1, 457504
Amoroto Biscayan Eastern Markina Northwestern 1992b:Vol. 1, 87141
Andoain Guipuscoan Northern Tolosa Northern 1991:Vol. 1, 197218
Arrasate Biscayan Guipuscoan Salinas Proper 1992b:Vol. 2, 491531
Astigarraga Guipuscoan Northern Hernani Proper 1991:Vol. 1, 1759
Barrika Biscayan Western Plentzia Proper 1992b:Vol. 1, 547582
Basauri Biscayan Western Arrigorriaga Proper 1992b:Vol. 2, 167201
Berastegi Guipuscoan Northern Tolosa Southern 1991:Vol. 1, 219249
Bergara Biscayan Guipuscoan Bergara Proper 1992b:Vol. 2, 375408
Bermeo Biscayan Western Bermeo Proper 1992b:Vol. 1, 441456
Berriatua Biscayan Eastern Markina Proper 1992b:Vol. 1, 1585
Butroi Biscayan Western Plentzia Northeastern 1992b:Vol. 1, 627673
Donostia Guipuscoan Northern Hernani Northeastern 1991:Vol. 1, 61114
Ereo Biscayan Western Bermeo Eastern 1992b:Vol. 1, 505539
Errenteria Northern High Guipuscoan Irun Errenteria-Lezo 1992a:Vol. 2:517580
Navarrese
Etxarri- Guipuscoan Navarrese Etxarri- Proper 1991:Vol. 2:383405
Aranatz Aranatz
Gallartu Biscayan Western Orozko Proper 1992b:Vol. 2, 101157
Gatika Biscayan Western Plentzia Northeastern 1992b:Vol. 1, 627673
Gernika Biscayan Western Gernika Proper 1992b:Vol. 1, 239316
Getaria Labourdin Proper Donibane- Northern 1997:325378
Lohizune
Ibarrangelu Biscayan Western Bermeo Eastern 1992b:Vol. 1, 505539
Ispaster Biscayan Eastern Markina Northwestern 1992b:Vol. 1, 87141
Kortezubi Biscayan Western Bermeo Eastern 1992b:Vol. 1, 505539
Legazpi Guipuscoan Southern Zegama Legazpi 1991:Vol. 2, 163181
Leioa Biscayan Western Plentzia Southern 1992b:Vol. 1, 583625
Lekeitio Biscayan Eastern Markina Northwestern 1992b:Vol. 1, 87141
Maruri Biscayan Western Plentzia Northeastern 1992b:Vol. 1, 627673
Mendata Biscayan Western Gernika Proper 1992b:Vol. 1, 239316
Mundaka Biscayan Western Bermeo Western 1992b:Vol. 1, 457504
Olatzagutia Guipuscoan Navarrese Burunda Olatzagutia-Ziordia 1991:Vol. 2, 213255
Ondarru Biscayan Eastern Markina Ondarru 1992b:Vol. 1, 213232
Oati Biscayan Guipuscoan Bergara Oati 1992b:Vol. 2, 455484
Sara Labourdin Proper Sara Proper 1997:4580
Tolosa Guipuscoan Northern Tolosa Proper 1991:Vol. 1, 181195
Zamudio Biscayan Western Plentzia Southern 1992b:Vol. 1, 583625
Zarautz Guipuscoan Northern Azpeitia Eastern Coast 1991:Vol. 1, 465515
Zumaia Guipuscoan Northern Azpeitia Eastern Coast 1991:Vol. 1, 465515
References
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, and Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint.
Syntax 10:237.
Adger, David, Susana Bjar, and Daniel Harbour. 2003. Directionality of allomorphy: A reply to
Carstairs-McCarthy. Transactions of the Philological Society 101:109115.
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 Andoni Lakarra, and R. L. Trask, 275293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Albizu, Pablo. 1997. Generalized Person-Case Constraint: A case for a syntax-driven inflec-
tional morphology. In Theoretical issues at the morphology-syntax interface, ed. Amaya
Mendikoetxea, and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria, 134. Bilbo: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
Albizu, Pablo. 2001. Sobre la distribucin sintctica de las formas finitas del verbo vasco. Anuario
del Seminario de Filologa Vasca Julio de Urquijo 35:65106.
Albizu, Pablo. 2002. Basque verbal morphology: Redefining cases. In Erramu Boneta: Festschrift
for Rudolf P.G. de Rijk, ed. Xabier Artiagoitia, Patxi Goenaga, and Joseba Andoni Lakarra,
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, vol. 1, 519581. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Anderson, John M. 1992. Linguistic representation: Structural analogy and stratification. 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.
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, MA.
Arregi, Karlos. 2000. Tense in Basque, Ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA. http://home.uchicago.edu/~
karlos/Arregi-tense.pdf.

386 References
Arregi, Karlos. 2001. Person and number inflection in Basque. In Kasu eta komunztaduraren
gainean. On case and agreement, ed. Beatriz Fernndez, and Pablo Albizu, 71111. Bilbo:
Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
Arregi, Karlos. 2002. Focus on Basque movements. Doctoral diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Arregi, Karlos. 2004. The have/be alternation in Basque. Ms., University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign. http://home.uchicago.edu/~karlos.
Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2007. Obliteration vs. impoverishment in the Basque g-/z-
constraint. In Proceedings of the 30th annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, ed. Tatjana Schef-
fler, Joshua Tauberer, Aviad Eilam, and Laia Mayol, vol. 13.1 of University of Pennsylvania
working papers in linguistics, 114, Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia. 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 Hrafnb-
jargarson, 4986. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Arregi, Eurdice, and Javier Ormazabal. 2003. Aditz ditransitiboen barne-egitura. In Iker 14.1:
Euskal gramatikari eta literaturari buruzko ikerketak XXI. mendearen atarian. Gramatika
gaiak, ed. Jesus Mari Makazaga, and Bernard Oyharabal, 119136. Bilbo: Euskaltzaindia.
http://www.euskaltzaindia.org/dok/ikerbilduma/54810.pdf.
Arretxe, Jon. 1994. Basauriko euskara. Basauri: Basauriko Udala.
Artiagoitia, Xabier. 1997. DP predicates in Basque. In University of Washington working papers
in linguistics, vol. 15, ed. Maria Galvo, 161198. Department of Linguistics, University of
Washington, Seattle. http://depts.washington.edu/uwwpl/editions/vol15.html.
Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2001. Seemingly ergative and ergatively seeming. In Features and interfaces
in Romance: Essays in honor of Heles Contreras, ed. Julia Herschensohn, Enrique Malln, and
Karen Zagona, 122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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 Andoni Lakarra, 7390. Bilbo: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. http://artxiker.ccsd.cnrs.
fr/artxibo-00083534/en.
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 reflexive 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. http://www.mendebalde.com.
Azkue Ibarbia, Xabier. 2000. Hitanoa Zumaian: Egoera, erabilera, transmisioa eta formak.
Zumaia: Zumaiako Udala.
Badihardugu. 2005. Oatiko aditz-taulak. Eibar: Badihardugu Euskara Elkartia. http://www.
badihardugu.com/argitalpenak/aditz_taulak/oinatiko_aditza.pdf.
Baker, Mark C. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic inquiry
16:373415.
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bakovic, Eric. 2005. Antigemination, assimilation and the determination of identity. Phonology
22:279315.
Bakovic, Eric. 2007. A revised typology of opaque generalisations. Phonology 24:214259.
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, ed. Ana Teresa Prez-Leroux, and Yves
Roberge, 4962. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Belletti, Adriana. 2005. Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus 17:135.
References 387
Bermdez-Otero, Ricardo, and Patrick Honeybone. 2006. Phonology and syntax: A shifting
relationship. Lingua 116:543561.
Bhatia, Archna, Elabbas Benmamoun, and Maria Polinsky. 2009. Closest conjunct agreement in
head final languages. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9:6788.
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Martin Walkow. 2011. Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from
agreement in conjunctions. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. To appear in Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory.
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, CA.: CSLI Publications.
Bittner, Maria, and Ken Hale. 1996. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic
Inquiry 27:168.
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, vol. 10
of University of Maryland working papers in linguistics, 3571. Department of Linguistics,
University of Maryland, College Park.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2002. Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. In
Yearbook of Morphology 2001, ed. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 5385. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2008a. Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals. The
Linguistic Review 25:203230.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 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.
Bonaparte, Louis Lucien. 1869. Le verbe basque en tableaux. London: Strangeways and Walden.
Bonet, Eullia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral diss.,
MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Bonet, Eullia. 1995. Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 13:607647.
Borsley, Robert D., Maggie Tallerman, and David Willis. 2007. The syntax of Welsh. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bokovic, eljko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33:351383.
Bossong, Georg. 1984. Ergativity in Basque. Linguistics 22:341392.
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. Doctoral diss., University of Troms, Troms.
Calabrese, Andrea. 1988. Towards a theory of phonological alphabets. Doctoral diss., MIT,
Cambridge, MA.
Calabrese, Andrea. 1998. Metaphony revisited. Rivista di Linguistica 10:768.
Calabrese, Andrea. 2005. Markedness and economy within a derivational model of phonology.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Calabrese, Andrea. 2008. On absolute and contextual syncretism: Remarks on the structure of
paradigms and how to derive them. In Inflectional identity, ed. Asaf Bachrach and Andrew
Nevins, 156205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Calabrese, Andrea. 2010. Investigations on markedeness, syncretism and zero exponence in
morphology. Morphology 21:283325.
Campos, Hector. 1992. Enunciative elements in Gascon. Linguistics 30:911940.
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 deficiency: 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.
Casali, Roderic. 1998. Resolving hiatus. New York: Garland.
Cecchetto, Carlo. 2000. Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus 12:93126.
388 References
Charette, Monik. 1991. Conditions on phonological government. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Principles
and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin, 417454. Cambridge, MA: 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, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael
Kenstowicz, 152. Cambridge, MA: 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,
Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: 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.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Coon, Jessica. 2010. Complementation in Chol (Mayan): A theory of split ergativity. Doctoral
diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Ct, Marie-Hlne. 2000. Consonant cluster phonotactics: a perceptual approach. Doctoral diss.,
MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Cottel, Siobhan. 1995. The representation of tense in Modern Irish. In Geneva generative papers,
vol. 3.2, ed. Michal Starke, Eric Haeberli, and Christopher Laenzlinger, 105124. Dpartement
de Linguistique Gnrale, Universit de Genve, Geneva.
Cuervo, Mara Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Doctoral diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
de Azkue, Resurreccin Mara. 1891. Euskal-izkindea. Gramtica eskara. Bilbo: Jose Astui.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ih0TAAAAYAAJ.
de Azkue, Resurreccin Mara. 1925. Morfologa vasca. Bilbo: Editorial Vasca. http://www.
euskaltzaindia.net/gramatika.
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.
de Rijk, Rudolf P.G. 1972. Studies in Basque syntax: Relative clauses. Doctoral diss., MIT,
Cambridge, MA.
de Rijk, Rudolf P.G. 2007. Standard Basque: A progressive grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
de Yrizar, Pedro. 1991. Morfologa del verbo auxiliar guipuzcoano: Estudio dialectolgico. Bilbo:
Euskaltzaindia. http://www.euskaltzaindia.net/mvav.
de Yrizar, Pedro. 1992a. Morfologa del verbo auxiliar alto navarro septentrional: Estudio
dialectolgico. Bilbo: Euskaltzaindia. http://www.euskaltzaindia.net/mvav.
de Yrizar, Pedro. 1992b. Morfologa del verbo auxiliar vizcano: Estudio dialectolgico. Bilbo:
de Yrizar, Pedro. 1997. Morfologa del verbo auxiliar labortano: Estudio dialectolgico. Bilbo:
de Zavala, Juan Mateo. 1848. El verbo regular vascongado del dialecto vizcaino. Donostia: Ignacio
Ramn Baroja.
Elordieta, Arantzazu. 2001. Verb movement and constituent permutation in Basque. Doctoral diss.,
University of Leiden, Leiden.
Elordieta, Gorka. 1997. Morphosyntactic feature chains and phonological domains. Doctoral diss.,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
References 389
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry
32:555595.
Etxeberria, Urzi. 2008. On quantification in Basque and on how some languages restrict their
quantificational domain overtly. In Quantification: 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 Bernard Oyharabal. 2010. Datives and adpositions in North-Eastern
Basque. Ms., CNRS-IKER, Baiona. To appear in Variation in datives: A micro-comparative
perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Euskaltzaindia. 2008. Euskararen herri hizkeren atlasa. http://www.euskaltzaindia.net/ehha.
Fernndez, Beatriz. 1997. Egiturazko kasuaren erkaketa euskaraz. Doctoral diss., Euskal Herriko
Unibertsitatea, 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,
vol. 34 of MIT working papers in linguistics, 177190. MITWPL, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
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, 147165. Bilbo:
Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
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, ed. Akira Okrent, and John P. Boyle, 103117.
Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
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. http://www.euskaltzaindia.org/dok/ikerbilduma/54817.pdf.
Fernndez, Beatriz, and Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 2010. Datiboa hiztegian. Bilbo: Euskal Herriko
Unibertsitatea.
Fernndez, Beatriz, and Milan Rezac. 2010. Datibo osagarri bitxiak eta Datiboaren Lekualdatzea:
ari nai diyot eta kanta egin nazu bidegurutzean. In Euskara eta euskarak: Aldakortasun
sintaktikoa aztergai, ed. Beatriz Fernndez, Pablo Albizu, and Ricardo Etxepare, 113150.
Bilbo: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
Frampton, John. 2009. Distributed reduplication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frampton, John, and Sam Gutmann. 2006. How sentences grow in the mind: Agreement and
selection in efficient minimialist syntax. In Agreement systems, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 121157.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Franks, Steven, and Catherine Rudin. 2005. Bulgarian clitics as K0 heads. In Formal approaches to
Slavic linguistics 13: The South Carolina meeting 2004, ed. Steven Franks, Frank Y. Gladney,
and Mila Tasseva-Kurktchieva, 106118. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
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 inflection in the C-domain.
Linguistische Berichte 213:77106.
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. Irua: Udako Euskal Unibertsitatea. https://sites.google.
com/site/inakigaminde/home/1-liburua.
390 References
Gaminde, Iaki. 1985. Aditza ipar goi nafarreraz. Irua: Udako Euskal Unibertsitatea. https://sites.
google.com/site/inakigaminde/home/1-liburua.
Gaminde, Iaki. 1988. Ahozko bizkaieraz. Bilbo: Bizkaiko AEK.
Gaminde, Iaki. 2000. Zamudio berbarik berba. Bilbo: Labayru Ikastegia. http://bips.bi.ehu.es/
manwe-bideoteka/zamudio/.
Gaminde, Iaki. 2002. Bizkaiko euskararen ezaugarri fonologiko batzuen inguruan. Euskalingua
1:414. http://www.mendebalde.com.
Gmez Lpez, Ricardo, and Koldo Sainz. 1995. On the origin of the finite forms of the Basque
verb. In Towards a history of the Basque language, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde, Joseba Andoni
Lakarra, and R. L. Trask, 235274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals: With special reference to feature hierarchies.
The Hague: Mouton.
Haddican, William. 2004. Sentence polarity and word order in Basque. The Linguistic Review
21:87124.
Haiman, John, and Paola Beninc. 1992. The Rhaeto-Romance languages. London: Routledge.
Hale, Kenneth. 1973. Person marking in Warlbiri. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. Stephen
Anderson, and Paul Kiparsky, 308344. New York: 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, MA: MIT Press.
Halle, Morris. 1997. Impoverishment and fission. In PF: Papers at the interface, ed. Benjamin
Bruening Yoonjung Kang, and Martha McGinnis, vol. 30 of MIT working papers in linguistics,
425450. MITWPL, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Halle, Morris. 2008. Reduplication. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor
of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Mara Luisa Zubizarreta,
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In
The View from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Kenneth Hale and
Samuel Jay Keyser, 111176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Papers
on phonology and morphology, ed. Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Tony Bures, vol. 21 of
MIT working papers in linguistics, 275288. MITWPL, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1980. Three-dimensional phonology. Journal of Linguis-
tic Research 1:83105.
Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Halpern, Aaron, and Arnold Zwicky. 1996. Approaching second: Second position clitics and
related phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Harbour, Daniel. 2003. The Kiowa case for feature insertion. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 21.3:543578.
Harbour, Daniel. 2008a. Discontinuous agreement and the syntax-morphology interface. In Phi
theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, ed. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and
Susana Bjar, 184220. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harbour, Daniel. 2008b. Morphosemantic number: From Kiowa noun classes to UG number
features. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hargus, Sharon, and Ellen M. Kaisse. 1993. Studies in lexical phonology. San Diego, CA:
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, vol. 21 of MIT
working papers in linguistics, 289320. MITWPL, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Harley, Heidi. 2008. When is a syncretism more than a syncretism? Impoverishment, metasyn-
cretism, and underspecification. In Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, ed.
Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Bjar, 251294. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harley, Heidi, and Rolf Noyer. 1999. State-of-the-article: Distributed Morphology. GLOT Interna-
tional 4:39.
References 391
Harley, Heidi, and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric
analysis. Language 78:482526.
Harris, Alice. 2009. Exuberant exponence in Batsbi. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
27:267303.
Harris, James, and Morris Halle. 2005. Unexpected plural inflections in Spanish: Reduplication
and metathesis. Linguistic Inquiry 36:192222.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. The diachronic externalization of inflection. Linguistics 31:279309.
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, University of California, Berkeley.
Heim, Irene. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinharts
approach. In The interpretive tract, ed. Uli Sauerland, and Orin Percus, vol. 25 of MIT working
papers in linguistics, 205246. MITWPL, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Hill, Virginia. 2007. Vocatives and the pragmatics-syntax interface. Lingua 117:20772105.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. In
Proceedings of the 1st HUMIT student conference in language research (HUMIT 2000), ed. Ora
Matushansky, vol. 40 of MIT working papers in linguistics, 6780. MITWPL, MIT, Cambridge,
MA.
Holgun, Justin. 2007. The status of ergative case in Basque: A minimalist approach. BA thesis,
Reed College, Portland, OR. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000449.
Holmberg, Anders, and Thorbjrg Hrarsdttir. 2003. Agreement and movement in Icelandic
raising constructions. Lingua 113:9971019.
Hualde, Jos Ignacio. 1991a. Basque phonology. New York: Routledge.
Hualde, Jos Ignacio. 1991b. Unspecified and unmarked vowels. Linguistic Inquiry 22:205209.
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, vol. 1, 219230. Munich:
Lincom Europa.
Hualde, Jos Ignacio. 2003a. Case and number inflection 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
Hualde, Jos Ignacio. 2003d. Nonfinite 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, 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 Unibertsitatea.
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, and Iaki Gaminde. 1998. Vowel interaction in Basque: A nearly exhaustive
catalogue. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 28:4177.
Hualde, Jos Ignacio, and Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 1987. Restructuring with ARI. Anuario del
Seminario de Filologa Vasca Julio de Urquijo 21:425452.
Hualde, Jos Ignacio, and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, eds. 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Hualde, Jos Ignacio, Gorka Elordieta, and Arantzazu Elordieta. 1994. The Basque dialect of
Lekeitio. Bilbo: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
Huidobro, Susana. 2009. Datives as concordial case: Evidence from Spanish and Galician. Paper
presented at the 19th Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Vitoria-Gasteiz.
392 References
Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2003. Japanese morphophonemics: Markedness and word structure.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
Jnsson, Jhannes Gsli. 2009. Covert nominative and dative subjects in Faroese. Nordlyd 36:
142164.
Joppen, Sandra, and Dieter Wunderlich. 1995. Argument linking in Basque. Lingua 97:123169.
Julien, Marit. 2007. On the relation between morphology and syntax. In The Oxford handbook
of linguistic interfaces, ed. Gillian Ramchand, and Charles Reiss, 209238. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kari, James. 1989. Affix positions and zones in the Athapaskan verb complex: Ahtna and Navajo.
International Journal of American Linguistics 55:424454.
Kayne, Richard. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22:647686.
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Keane, Jonathan. 2009. Vowel dissimilation. Ms., University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Kenstowicz, Michael, and Charles Kisseberth. 1979. Generative phonology: Description and
theory. New York: Academic Press.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Elsewhere in phonology. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. Stephen
Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 93106. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Word formation and the Lexicon. In 1982 Mid-America linguistics confer-
ence papers, ed. Frances Ingemann, 329. Department of Linguistics, University of Kansas,
Lawrence.
Kisseberth, Charles. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry
1:291306.
Kramer, Ruth. 2010. The Amharic definite marker and the syntax-morphology interface. Syntax
13:196240.
Lafitte, 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, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections.
Doctoral diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Laka, Itziar. 1993a. The structure of inflection: 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, vol. 18 of MIT
working papers in linguistics, 149172. MITWPL, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Laka, Itziar. 1996. A brief grammar of Euskara, the Basque language. Ms., Euskal Her-
riko Unibertsitatea, Vitoria-Gasteiz. http://www.ei.ehu.es/contenidos/informacion/grammar_
euskara/en_doc.
Laka, Itziar. 2005. On the nature of case in Basque: Structural or inherent? In Organizing grammar:
Linguistics studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, ed. Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny
Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz, and Jan Koster, 374382. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
Laka, Itziar. 2006. Deriving split ergativity in the progressive. In Ergativity: Emerging issues, ed.
Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 173195. Dordrecht: Springer.
Laka, Enara, Leire Olondo, and Iaki Gaminde. 2008. Bermeoko gazteen euskararen aditz
morfologiaz. Euskalingua 13:2736.
Lasnik, Howard. 1981. On two recent treatments of disjoint reference. Journal of Linguistic
Research 1:4858.
Legate, Julie. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39:55101.
Levin, Beth Carol. 1983. On the nature of ergativity. Doctoral diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
References 393
Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A distinction and movement theory. Doctoral diss., MIT,
Cambridge, MA.
Manzini, M. Rita, and Leonardo M. Savoia. 2004. Clitics: Cooccurrence and mutual exclusion
patterns. In The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 2, ed.
Luigi Rizzi, 211250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marantz, Alec. 1982. Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13:435482.
Marantz, Alec. 2000. Case and licensing. In Arguments and case: Explaining Burzios generaliza-
tion, ed. Eric Reuland, 1130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McCarthy, John. 1986. OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry
17:207264.
McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1995. Prosodic morphology. In The handbook of phonological
theory, ed. John Goldsmith, 318366. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the
syntax-morphology interface. Doctoral diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
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, vol. 2 of South Asian
studies publication series, 240269. South Asian Language and Area Center, University of
Wisconsin, Madison.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-
configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Montoya, Estibalitz. 1998. Objektu bikoitzeko egiturak euskaraz. Ms., Euskal Herriko Unibertsi-
tatea, Vitoria-Gasteiz.
Neeleman, Ad, and Kriszta Szendroi. 2007. Radical pro drop and the morphology of pronouns.
Linguistic Inquiry 38:671714.
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case
effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:273313.
Nevins, Andrew. 2008. Cross-modular parallels in the study of phon and phi. In Phi theory: Phi-
features across modules and interfaces, ed. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Bjar,
329367. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nevins, Andrew. 2010. Locality in vowel harmony. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nevins, Andrew. 2011a. Marked targets versus marked triggers and impoverishment of the dual.
Nevins, Andrew. 2011b. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous
number. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29:939971.
Nevins, Andrew, and Pranav Anand. 2003. Some AGREE-ment matters. In Proceedings of the West
Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 22, ed. Gina Garding, and Mimu Tsujimura, 370383.
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Nevins, Andrew, and Jeffrey Parrott. 2010. Variable rules meet impoverishment theory: Patterns of
auxiliary levelling. Lingua 120:11351159.
Nevins, Andrew, and Oana Savescu. 2010. An apparent number case constraint in Romanian: The
role of syncretism. In Romance Linguistics 2008: Interactions in Romance. Selected papers
from the 38th linguistic symposium on Romance languages (LSRL), Urbana-Champaign, April
2008, ed. Karlos Arregi, Zsuzsanna Fagyal, Silvina Montrul, and Annie Tremblay, 185200.
Nevis, Joel A., and Brian D. Joseph. 1992. Wackernagel affixes: Evidence from Balto-Slavic.
In Yearbook of morphology 1992, ed. Geert Booij, and Jaap van Marle, 93111. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Doctoral
diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Noyer, Rolf. 1998. Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In Morphology and
its relation to syntax and phonology, ed. Steven G. Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari, and Patrick M.
Farrell, 264285. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
394 References
Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Clitic Sequences in Nunggubuyu and PF convergence. Natural Language and
Oregi Aranburu, Josu. 1974. Euskal-aditzaz zenbait gogoeta. Fontes Linguae Vasconum
17:265283.
Ormazabal, Javier. 2000. A conspiracy theory of case and agreement. In Step by step: Essays on
minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan
Uriagereka, 235260. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 1998. On the syntactic nature of the me-lui and the Person-
Case Constraint. Anuario del Seminario de Filologa Vasca Julio de Urquijo 32:415434.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2001. A brief description of some agreement restrictions. In
Kasu eta komunztaduraren gainean. On case and agreement, ed. Beatriz Fernndez, and Pablo
Albizu, 215241. Bilbo: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2007. The object agreement constraint. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 25:315347.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2010. The derivation of dative alternations. In Argument
structure and syntactic relations: A cross-linguistic perspective, ed. Maia Duguine, Susana
Huidobro, and Nerea Madariaga, 203232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1989. Parameters in the grammar of Basque: A GB approach to Basque
syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1994. Verb-initial patterns in Basque and Breton. Lingua 94:125153.
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 2003a. Causatives. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Jos Ignacio Hualde and
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.
Oyharabal, Bernard. 1992. Structural case and inherent case marking: Ergaccusativity in Basque.
In Syntactic theory and Basque syntax, ed. Joseba Andoni Lakarra and Jon Ortiz de Urbina,
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,
89114. 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
Oyharabal, Bernard. 2010. Basque ditransitives. In Argument structure and syntactic relations:
A cross-linguistic perspective, ed. Maia Duguine, Susana Huidobro, and Nerea Madariaga,
Oyharabal, Bernard, and Ricardo Etxepare. 2009. The absence of Person-Case Constraints in
early Lapurdian. Ms., CNRS-IKER, Baiona. To appear in Koldo Mitxelena Katredraren II.
Aktak, Vitoria-Gasteiz: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
Parry, M. Mair. 1995. Some observations on the syntax of clitic pronouns in Piedmontese. In
Linguistic theory and the Romance languages, ed. John Charles Smith and Martin Maiden,
Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Pescarini, Diego. 2010. Elsewhere in Romance: Evidence from clitic clusters. Linguistic Inquiry
41:427444.
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Doctoral diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: 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.
Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The higher functional field. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
References 395
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. 2012. The absence of an implicit object in unergatives: New and old evidence
from Basque. Lingua 122:278288.
Pylkknen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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
diss., 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.
Reiss, Charles, and Marc Simpson. 2009. Reduplication as projection. Ms., Concordia University,
Montral. http://0branch.com/project/redup.
Reuland, Eric. 2005. Agreeing to bind. In Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of
Henk van Riemsdijk, ed. Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz,
and Jan Koster, 505513. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rezac, Milan. 2003. The fine structure of cyclic agree. Syntax 6:156182.
Rezac, Milan. 2004. Elements of cyclic syntax: Agree and merge. Doctoral diss., University of
Toronto, Toronto.
Rezac, Milan. 2006. Agreement displacement in Basque: Derivational principles and lexical
parameters. Ms., Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Vitoria-Gasteiz. http://members.multimania.
co.uk/loargann.
Rezac, Milan. 2008a. The forms of dative displacement: From Basauri to Itelmen. In Gramatika
jaietan: Festschrift for Patxi Goenaga, ed. Xabier Artiagoitia, and Joseba Andoni Lakarra,
Rezac, Milan. 2008b. 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. 2008c. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and
absolutive displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26:61106.
Rezac, Milan. 2009. Person restrictions in Basque intransitives. Ms., CNRS-SFL, Paris. To appear
in Lapurdum.
Rezac, Milan. 2011. Phi-features and the modular architecture of language. Dordrecht: Springer.
Rezac, Milan, Pablo Albizu, and Ricardo Etxepare. 2011. The structural ergative of Basque
and the theory of Case. CNRS-SFL/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea/CNRS-IKER, Paris/Vitoria-
Gasteiz/Baiona.
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, MA: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook in
generative syntax, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Robinson, Christine. 2008. Agreement in Scottish Gaelic: A Distributed Morphology analysis.
MA thesis, University College Dublin, Dublin.
Rooryck, Johan. 2006. Binding into pronouns. Lingua 116:15611579.
Rosen, Carol. 1990. Rethinking Southern Tiwa: The geometry of a triple-agreement language.
Language 66:669713.
Rotaetxe, Karmele. 1978. Estudio estructural del euskara de Ondrroa. Durango: Leopoldo
Zugaza.
396 References
Rudin, Catherine. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple WH fronting. Natural Language and
Sag, Ivan A., Thomas Wasow, and Emily M. Bender. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction.
Stanford, CA: 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, vol. 16.1 of University
of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics, 166175. Department of Linguistics, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
San Martin, Itziar. 2004. On subordination and the distribution of PRO. Doctoral diss., University
of Maryland, College Park.
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1893. Baskische studien I: ber die Entstehung der Bezugsformen des
baskischen Zeitworks. Vienna: Akademie der Wissenschaften. http://books.google.com/books?
id=GDcTAAAAQAAJ.
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook
3:371405.
Shlonsky, Ur. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23:443468.
Silva-Corvaln, Carmen. 1989. Sociolingstica: teora y anlisis. Madrid: Alhambra.
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.
Starke, Michal. 2001. Move dissolves into Merge: A theory of locality. Doctoral diss., University
of Geneva, Geneva.
Suer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 6:391434.
Thompson, Chad Lawrence. 1977. Koyukon verb prefixes. 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 Anglo-
American contributions to Basque studies: Essays in honor of Jon Bilbao, ed. William A.
Douglass, Richard W. Etulain, and William H. Jacobsen, 203217. Desert Research Institute,
Reno, NV.
Trask, R.L. 1997. The history of Basque. New York: Routledge.
Trask, R.L. 2003. The noun phrase: Nouns, determiners, and modifiers; 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 diss., MIT,
Cambridge, MA.
Trommer, Jochen. 1999. Morphology consuming syntaxs resources: Generation and parsing in a
minimalist version of Distributed Morphology. Ms., Universitt Leipzig, Leipzig.
Trommer, Jochen. 2008. Coherence in affix order. Zeitschrift fr Sprachwissenschaft 27:99140.
Trommer, Jochen. 2010. A postsyntactic morphome cookbook. Paper presented at the Perspectives
on the Morphome Workshop, Coimbra.
Tsakali, Vina. 2008. Double floating quantifiers 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, MA: MIT Press.
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.
References 397
van Koppen, Marjo. 2005. One probe two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. Doctoral
diss., Leiden University, Leiden.
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, vol. 2 of South Asian studies publication
series, 270285. South Asian Language and Area Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
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.
Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. Person hierarchy effects without a person hierarchy. In Agreement
restrictions, ed. Susann Fischer, Roberta DAlessandro, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson,
281314. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry
37:111130.
Yip, Moira. 1988. The Obligatory Contour Principle and phonological rules: A loss of identity.
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.
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2008. Encoding the addressee in the syntax: Evidence from english imperative
subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26:185218.
Zuazo, Koldo. 1998. Euskalkiak, gaur. Fontes linguae vasconum: Studia et documenta 30:191234.
Zuazo, Koldo. 2003. Euskalkiak: Herriaren lekukoak. Donostia: Elkar.
Zuazo, Koldo. 2008. Euskalkiak: Euskararen dialektoak. Donostia: Elkar.
Zubizarreta, Mara Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Index of Languages and Basque Dialects
A C
Ahetze, 311, 384 Catalan
Ahtna, 262 Barcelon, 210
Alboniga, 220222, 284, 285, 383, Valencian, 122, 181
384
Amharic, 239, 240, 250255
Amoroto, 285, 384 D
Andoain, 135, 383, 384 Donostia, 135, 384
Arpino, 133 Dutch
Arrasate, 285, 384 Wambeek, 54, 57
Astigarraga, 135, 384
E
English, 11, 22, 27, 38, 39, 4244, 99, 179,
239, 240, 246, 259261, 383
B
Ereo, 318, 384
Barrika, 222, 384
Errenteria, 70, 384
Basauri, 79, 80, 311, 373, 384
Etxarri-Aranatz, 127, 128, 140142, 384
Batua, 12, 14, 15, 2022, 3740, 75, 92, 127,
132, 135, 205, 206, 297, 299, 313, 314,
317, 318 F
Bavarian, 90 Faroese, 85
Beaver, 262 French, 11, 12, 92, 383
Berastegi, 21, 135, 136, 372, 384
Bergara, 285, 384
Bermeo, 222, 267, 384 G
Berriatua, 70, 191, 301, 384 Galician, 312
Biscayan, vii, viii, 1215, 17, 20, 27, 28, 30, Gallartu, 222, 384
31, 38, 40, 46, 70, 72, 75, 79, 8992, Gascon, 104
94, 95, 124, 126132, 134, 135, 138, Gatika, 221, 384
140143, 146, 155, 163, 168, 169, 176, Gernika, 70, 345, 351, 384
177, 183, 187, 188, 191, 198, 199, 201, Getaria, 318, 321, 384
211215, 220222, 224, 230, 234, 263, Greek, 62
264, 267, 274, 283, 285, 286, 289, 291, Guipuscoan, 12, 15, 70, 127, 128, 130, 135,
297, 301, 303, 304, 311, 312, 318, 320, 140142, 168, 230, 301, 304, 312, 318,
333, 351, 364, 369373, 383, 384 320, 321, 351, 372, 383, 384
Butroi, 222, 383, 384 Gujarati, 85

400 Index of Languages and Basque Dialects
H Oati, 285, 286, 303311, 372, 384

High Navarrese, 12, 70, 383 Ondarru, viii, 11, 13, 14, 1618, 29, 37, 39,
Hindi, 85, 344 40, 49, 51, 64, 6979, 89, 91, 92, 94,
97, 106, 122, 123, 125127, 129131,
140143, 146, 147, 152156, 163,
I 165169, 171195, 197, 198, 206, 207,
Ibarrangelu, 267271, 372, 384 209, 211218, 220, 223, 224, 228, 229,
Icelandic, 85 232, 233, 240, 267, 273, 279, 281, 285,
Irish, 105, 106. See also Old Irish 287, 308, 322, 326329, 332, 333, 345,
Ispaster, 126, 285, 383, 384 347353, 355358, 370372, 375384
Italian, 52, 62, 94, 121, 133, 181, 210, 239,
240, 255258, 286
P
Paduan, 121
K Piedmontese, 53, 256
Korean, 104
Kortezubi, 267, 269, 270, 372, 384
Koyukon, 262 R
Rhaeto-Romance, 53
Romanian, 239, 240, 259, 260
L Russian, 243
Labourdin, 12, 230, 311, 312, 318, 321, 373,
383, 384
Legazpi, 70, 384 S
Leioa, 1, 384 Salish, 55
Lekeitio, 11, 13, 14, 1618, 23, 26, 27, 37, Sara, 311, 337, 384
3941, 70, 76, 83, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, Slave, 262
94, 97, 100, 112, 113, 122, 123, 125, Souletin, 12
126, 130132, 139, 142, 143, 146149, Spanish, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 37, 38, 44, 52, 53,
151159, 163, 166, 168, 169, 171193, 57, 58, 65, 73, 175, 210, 211, 239245,
195199, 203, 205, 224, 225, 227228, 256, 264, 269, 285, 383
230, 231, 234, 272274, 279, 281, 282,
286, 287, 291, 296, 302, 303, 307, 308,
310, 311, 344, 363, 365, 371373, T
375382, 384 Tavullia, 210, 211
Lithuanian, 239, 240, 250255, 276 Tolosa, 70, 351, 384
Low Navarrese, 12
W
M Warlpiri, 208, 209
Madurese, 242, 243 Welsh, 104
Mangarrayi, 241
Maruri, 221, 384
Mendata, 70, 351, 384 Z
Mundaka, 70, 351, 384 Zamudio, viii, 11, 13, 14, 1618, 37, 39, 40,
70, 75, 76, 89, 91, 92, 94, 97, 100,
122, 123, 125, 126, 131, 134, 143, 144,
N 146, 147, 152, 154156, 165167, 169,
Nepali, 85 171198, 212, 214, 215, 217222, 224,
225, 229, 230, 232234, 273, 279, 281,
282, 285, 287, 291, 292, 296, 308, 312,
O 316318, 333, 345, 354, 355, 358,
Olatzagutia, 301, 384 370372, 375382, 384
Old Irish, 239, 240, 246250, 254, 255, 264, Zarautz, 70, 384
272, 283 Zumaia, 318321, 384
Name Index
A Bittner, M., 53
Ackema, P., 90 Bobaljik, J.D., 80, 86, 114, 207, 367
Adger, D., 64, 68, 114, 238, 246250 Bocci, G., 257
Alberdi, J., 40, 91, 144, 313 Bonaparte, L.L., 12
Albizu, P., 20, 24, 33, 34, 56, 64, 75, 105, 106, Bonet, E., 9, 64, 195, 203, 210, 221, 274, 296,
121, 128, 144, 163, 165, 274, 275, 283, 299, 366, 367
295302, 315317 Borsley, R.D., 105
Anagnostopoulou, E., 62, 64, 68 Boskovic, ., 259, 260
Anand, P., 81 Bossong, G., 274, 275, 289, 290, 298
Anderson, J.M., 207, 365
Anderson, S., 237, 368
Aoun, J., 298 C
Aramaio, I., 70, 191, 301, 302 Caha, P., 341
Arregi, E., 23 Calabrese, A., 7, 133, 202, 204, 238, 240, 263,
Arregi, K., 33, 37, 50, 70, 128, 129, 144, 150, 275, 282, 367, 368
202, 212, 221, 323, 354 Campos, H., 104
Arretxe, J., 80, 311 Cardinaletti, A., 54, 121, 131, 181, 255257
Artiagoitia, X., 20, 22, 24, 28, 41, 42, 44, 102, Casali, R., 368
104, 107 Cecchetto, C., 53, 63
Austin, J., 25 Charette, M., 366
Azkue Ibarbia, X., 318, 321, 373 Chomsky, N., 8, 58, 71, 80, 169, 251, 259, 323
Chung, S., 105, 106
Cinque, G., 257, 323, 334
B Connolly, B., v
Badihardugu, 303306 Coon, J., 19
Baker, M.C., 64, 68, 261, 315 Ct, M.-H., 177, 223
Bakovic, E., 193, 369 Cottel, S., 105
Bayer, J., 90 Cuervo, M.C., 24
Bjar, S., 64, 68
Belletti, A., 53
Bender, E., 86 D
Beninc, P., 53 de Azkue, R.M., 64, 79, 87, 88, 126, 128, 129,
Benmamoun, E., 86 135, 164, 220, 274, 275, 289, 298, 305,
Bermdez-Otero, R., 366 307, 373
Bhatia, A., 86 Dchaine, R.-M., 53, 54
Bhatt, Rajesh, 81, 86, 344 den Dikken, M., 54
Bhatt, Rakesh, 103, 104 de Rijk, R.P.G., 18, 104

402 Name Index
de Yrizar, P., 1214, 17, 125, 134, 135, 190, Harbour, D., 7, 64, 68, 203, 209, 265
212, 217, 220222, 224, 284, 285, 301, Hargus, S., 369
303, 305, 311, 318, 321, 326, 370, 374, Harley, H., 116, 119, 204, 205, 365367
375, 383, 384 Harris, A., 363
de Zavala, J.M., 64, 78 Harris, J., 10, 46, 239245, 266, 274, 275, 285,
340, 369
Haspelmath, M., 245
E Heath, J., 274, 288, 293
Eguren, L., 56, 105, 121, 144, 164, 274, 275, Heim, I., 42, 43
283, 298302 Hill, V., 315
Elordieta, A., 23, 128, 197, 333 Hiraiwa, K., 80
Elordieta, G., 197, 333 Holgun, J., 20
Embick, D., 114, 237, 238, 244, 246, 252255, Holmberg, A., 85
341, 344, 368, 369 Honeybone, P., 366
Etxeberria, U., 28 Hornstein, N., 298
Etxepare, R., 23, 27, 33, 59, 64, 97, 98, 132, Hrarsdttir, T, 85
328 Hualde, J.I., viii, 11, 13, 15, 1719, 22, 23,
Euskaltzaindia, 12, 188 2528, 30, 37, 3941, 70, 76, 83, 87,
Ezeizabarrena, M.J., 307, 309, 311 88, 91, 94, 97, 98, 104, 108, 127, 128,
132, 137, 143, 144, 157, 162, 165,
167, 171173, 175177, 179, 181, 182,
F 187191, 194197, 224, 274, 281, 286,
Fernndez, B., 20, 23, 25, 33, 34, 56, 83, 87, 333, 335, 369, 375
88, 91, 105, 157, 163, 165, 274, 283, Huidobro, S., 312
295, 296, 307, 309, 311, 363
Frampton, J., 86, 241
Franks, S., 53 I
Fu, E., 90, 91 Ito, J., 188, 234
G J
Gair, J.W., 54 Jaeggli, O., 52
Gaminde, I., 1, 13, 17, 18, 26, 27, 29, 34, 36, Jnsson, J, 85
37, 39, 40, 52, 56, 61, 70, 74, 75, 82, 89, Joppen, S., 24
97, 98, 102, 107, 123, 125128, 136, Joseph, B.D., 237, 252, 253
140, 141, 144, 155, 169, 172, 174176, Julien, M., 7
182185, 187, 188, 190, 191, 194197,
212, 217, 218, 222, 224, 265, 267, 270,
277279, 285, 288292, 296, 312, 313, K
315317, 320, 326, 333, 334, 336, 358, Kaisse, E.M., 369
375 Kari, J., 262
Gmez Lpez, R, 34, 164, 339 Kayne, R., 62, 64
Greenberg, J.H., 205 Keane, J., 183
Gutmann, S., 86 Kenstowicz, M., 169, 341
Keyser, S.J., 98
Kiparsky, P., 2, 60, 249, 284, 307, 369
H Kisseberth, C., 169, 341, 368
Haddican, W., 334 Kramer, R., 251, 252
Haiman, J., 53
Hale, K., 53, 97, 208, 209
Halle, M., 7, 911, 30, 46, 117, 169, 170, 202, L
221, 239245, 266, 274, 275, 285, 323, Lafitte, P., 64, 88, 373
340, 366, 367, 369 Lafon, R., 64, 128, 131, 230, 312, 320
Halpern, A., 237 Laka, E., 212, 222
Name Index 403
Laka, I., 1820, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 56, 60, 64, Poletto, C., 52, 53, 122
94, 97, 105, 121, 137, 163, 165, 237, Polinsky, M., 86
274, 275, 280, 293, 298302 Pollard, C., 86
Lasnik, H., 44 Preminger, O., 20, 50, 71, 9598, 100, 101,
Legate, J., 21 103
Levin, B.C., 97 Prince, A., 241
Lightfoot, D., 298 Pylkknen, L., 23, 129
M R
MacLeod, A., v Raimy, E., 241, 369
Mahajan, A., 85 Randoja, T.K., 262
Manzini, M.R., 211 Rebuschi, G., 312, 320
Marantz, A., 30, 80, 117, 170, 202, 221, 241, Reinhart, T., 42
242 Reiss, C., 245
McCarthy, J., 241, 369 Repetti, L., 121, 122, 131, 181
McCloskey, J., 105, 106 Reuland, E., 86
McFadden, T., 22 Rezac, M., viii, 2025, 33, 34, 50, 54, 56, 64,
Mendiola, O., 65, 70, 351 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 80, 83, 88, 94, 105,
Mester, A., 235 106, 128, 129, 138, 163, 165, 274, 281,
Mistry, P.J., 85 283, 295, 296, 301303, 307, 309312,
Miyagawa, S., 315 320, 341, 350352
Mohanan, T., 85 Rice, K., 261, 262
Montoya, E., 23 Richards, N., 59, 259, 260
Ritter, E., 204, 205, 365
Rizzi, L., 57, 103
N Roberts, I., 59
Neeleman, A., 53, 90 Robinson, C., 86
Nevins, A., 7, 50, 64, 68, 81, 150, 202, 203, Romero, J., 23, 64, 68, 79
205, 209, 210, 212, 221, 354, 365, 366 Rooryck, J., 44
Nevis, J.A., 237, 252, 253 Rosen, C., 222
Noyer, R., 9, 119, 132, 205, 209, 221, 237, Rotaetxe, K., 18
238, 244, 246, 252255, 341, 366, 367, Rudin, C., 53, 259
369
S
Sag, I.A., 86
O Sainz, K., 34, 164, 339
Olondo, L., 212, 222 Samuels, B., 197
Oregi Aranburu, J., 56 San Martin, I., 22
Ormazabal, J., 23, 64, 68, 79 Svescu, O., 64, 68
Ortiz de Urbina, J., 13, 1820, 2225, 108, Savoia, L.M., 211
274, 289, 290, 293, 333, 335, 336 Schuchardt, H., 128, 129
Oyharabal, B, 20, 23, 3941, 64, 107, 129, Selkirk, E., 323
144, 145, 313, 314 Shlonsky, U., 71, 255257
Silva-Corvalan, C., 256
Simpson, M., 245
P Smith, C., 261
Parrott, J., 205 Sportiche, D., 62
Parry, M.M., 256 Starke, M., 54, 365
Perlmutter, D., 44, 64, 210 Suer, M., 52
Pescarini, D., 202, 210 Sun Tzu, v
Pesetsky, D., 22, 81, 86, 258, 259 Szendri, K., 53
404 Name Index
T W
Tallerman, M., 105 Wackernagel, J., 46, 237, 252
Thompson, C.L., 262 Wali, K., 54
Todol, J., 122, 131, 181 Walkow, M., 81, 86, 344
Torrego, E., 35, 53, 62, 81, 86 Wanner, D., 258
Trask, R.L., 11, 26, 34, 56, 91, 128, 129, 131, Wasow, T., 86
132, 137, 138, 164, 168, 318 Weinberg, A., 298
Travis, L.d., 33 Williams, E., 366
Trommer, J., 202, 221, 265, 344 Willis, D., 105
Tsakali, V., 53 Wiltschko, M., 5355
Woolford, E., 20, 60
Wunderlich, D., 24
U
Uriagereka, J., 35, 53, 62, 63,
251 Y
Yip, M., 369
Yoon, J., 103, 104
V
van Craenenbroeck, J., 53, 54, 57 Z
van Koppen, M., 53, 54, 57, 90, 113, 119, 158, Zabala, I., 28
363 Zanuttini, R., 315
Vergnaud, J.-R., 323, 366 Zuazo, K., 12
Verma, M.K., 85 Zubizarreta, M.L., 323
von Goethe J.W., 49 Zwicky, A., 237
Subject Index
A Agree, 58, 10, 32, 33, 45, 4951, 70, 73, 74,
Absolute neutralization, 202, 206, 208 8086, 88, 101, 103, 108, 109, 116,
Absolutive, 7, 1920, 2628, 3335, 38, 45, 120, 128, 140, 148, 150, 151, 156, 164,
49, 50, 59, 101, 120, 144, 181, 182, 224, 295, 298, 308, 310, 311, 343, 344,
205, 364, 370373. See also Clitic, 359, 365
absence of third person absolutive; Agree-Copy, 5, 78, 45, 50, 51, 80, 81, 83,
Clitic, absolutive 8688, 91, 93, 96, 115, 119, 120, 141,
and Absolutive Promotion, 7274, 351 156, 157, 159, 207, 275, 308, 309, 343,
and Agree-Copy, 81, 8688, 119, 157, 159, 344, 362, 363, 371373
308, 309 Agree-Link, 3, 5, 78, 45, 50, 51, 80, 81, 83,
case features in plural clitics, 135 86, 88, 91, 93, 96, 115, 119, 156, 308,
as default case, 2123, 32, 53, 55, 56, 71, 344, 362, 363, 365, 371
77, 202, 231, 344 Agreement, 2836, 45, 49, 51, 52, 64, 80,
and Differential Object Marking, 17 86, 95, 111, 112, 116, 120, 124, 162,
on ergative arguments, 2425, 7274, 223, 198, 199, 201, 204, 205, 313, 315, 343,
351 344, 361, 371373. See also Absolutive
feature composition of, 7, 21, 55, 297 agreement; Clitics vs. agreement;
features and allomorphy of the auxiliary Complementizer agreement; Dative
root, 115, 116 agreement; Default agreement; Ergative
marking in auxiliaries, 163165 agreement; Multiple agreement;
and plural marking in auxiliaries, 137142, Two-step procedure in agreement;
278, 279, 362, 363 Realization of agreement
and pro-drop, 25, 52 and Absolutive Promotion, 70
in sentences with Ergative Metathesis, in C, 51, 8895, 124, 274
293295, 297302 with clitics and with arguments, 81, 82,
and strategies for reflexives and reciprocals, 277, 278
41, 42 and Dative Doubling, 304, 309311
and unergative predicates, 97, 98 with dative and ergative arguments, 8386,
Absolutive agreement, 32, 8184, 8689, 101, 231
138, 139, 157, 161, 164, 277, 278, 295, and Ergative Impoverishment, 73
303, 308, 309, 373 and Ergative Metathesis, 275, 278, 279,
Absolutive Promotion, 14, 24, 35, 45, 51, 283, 293, 295301
6480, 96, 139, 154, 217, 237, 344352, and L-Support, 286
357360, 369, 371 Metathesis and Doubling in Spanish,
referred to as absolutive displacement, 70 241245
Adjacency, 113116, 146, 150, 151, 163, 211, and PCC, 68
332, 343 plural, 137142, 362364

406 Subject Index
Agreement (cont.) Blocking constraint, 238, 263, 265, 271, 274,

and pro-drop, 25, 213 280, 322, 324, 330, 331, 340, 369
and strategies for reflexives and reciprocals,
41
in T, 50, 51, 8084, 143, 353 C
Allative, 27, 74, 7779, 132 Case, 1828, 32, 34, 35, 344. See also
Allocutive, 3940, 107, 144, 145, 311322. Absolutive; Absolutive as default case;
See also Clitic, allocutive Absolutive Promotion; Allocutive
Allocutive Case Redundancy Rule, 316 clitics and case; Dative; Differential
Allocutive clitics and case, 40, 107, 144, 145, Object Marking; Ergative; Person-Case
240, 303, 312321, 340, 373, 374 Constraint; Positional neutralization
Allomorph selection, 2, 46, 238, 246250, 264 and clitic generation, 5255
Allomorphy, 6, 9, 34, 39, 45, 107, 112, 116, and clitic movement, 5762
137, 150152, 159, 163, 164, 199, 211, and Dative Doubling, 303305
234, 250, 274, 275, 283, 293, 297, 299, and Ergative Metathesis, 280, 284, 294,
301, 302, 316, 322, 332, 340, 344, 364, 296299, 332, 364
and allocutive clitics, 317 features, 7
of the auxiliary root, 5, 47, 115 and Fission, 132136, 362, 372
of complementizer, 103, 104, 170, 171, and Impoverishment, 8788, 9091, 157,
174 214, 216, 217, 226231, 308, 343
conditions on, 115 inessive, 98
of first singular clitics, 124, 272, 273 and movement verbs, 7478
lack of tense-sensitive allomorphy in clitics, and Multiple Agree, 8186, 158
364 and Person-Number Order, 281
of L-morpheme, 56, 286, 287 phonological rules in absolutive case, 187
of plural clitics, 21, 135, 136, 372 phonological rules in comitative case, 178
positionally-sensitive allomorphs in Dative phonological rules in genitive case, 187
Doubling, 304 phonological rules in instrumental case,
of third person clitics, 100, 125, 291 178
voice-sensitive allomorphy of T in the and plural Metathesis, 267, 268
context of an ergative clitic: 5, 99, realization in clitics, 121132, 351, 352
102, 115, 143146, 201. (see also and strategies for reflexives and reciprocals,
Appl-Insertion; have/be alternation; 4042
Have-Insertion) Case features, 20, 21, 5355, 67, 68, 73, 76,
Applicative, 23, 129, 143, 218 82, 87, 88, 93, 121, 123, 125, 148, 157,
Applicative intransitive, 24, 34, 35, 128, 131, 158, 160, 215, 217, 223, 231, 265, 268,
140, 141, 146, 148. 286, 287, 316, 346, 270, 281, 297, 308, 315, 316, 372
377 Clitic. See also Clitics vs. agreement;
Appl-Insertion, 146, 150, 152 Linearization of clitics; Plural clitic;
Argument structure, 3, 1826, 45, 78, 97, 143, Realization of clitics
145, 146, 165, 240, 253, 350, 364 absence of third person absolutive, 35, 51,
Assimilation, 169, 184, 185, 188, 191, 193, 66
194, 197, 198 absolutive, 17, 30, 35, 37, 39, 45, 46,
Auxiliary root, 1, 5, 10, 33, 4547, 50, 95, 106, 5052, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66,
115, 116, 143, 152, 164, 165, 168, 201, 67, 71, 72, 75, 76, 78, 80, 82, 100, 101,
240, 327, 363, 364, 371 112, 115, 116, 119123, 125, 135137,
140, 159, 163, 167, 168, 175, 215, 217,
219, 224, 225, 231, 263, 265267, 271,
B 275277, 286, 290, 298, 300, 308, 311,
Basque dialect classification, 13, 143, 383384 314, 326, 337, 347, 350, 352, 353, 355,
Big-DP Hypothesis, 35, 62 357
Binding Theory, 4044 allocutive, 3940, 107, 144, 145, 311322.
Bleeding, 2, 45, 147, 193, 232, 341, 345348, (see also Doubling of allocutive clitic;
354, 359 Metathesis of allocutive clitic)
Subject Index 407
dative, 30, 31, 34, 35, 57, 58, 60, 6468, 71, Comparison between Lekeitio, Ondarru and
75, 76, 78, 80, 83, 84, 87, 88, 120, 122, Zamudio, 13, 14, 16, 17, 40, 92, 94,
124127, 129132, 175, 176, 181183, 100, 122, 125, 126, 130, 131, 143,
207, 210, 212219, 222, 224230, 145147, 152156, 165, 167, 169, 172,
233, 303309, 346352, 355358, 174198, 273, 279, 281, 282, 284, 287,
365, 376 333, 372, 375
doubling, 25, 28, 30, 35, 5262, 66, 6973, Comparison of maximization of rule
83, 91, 99, 103, 125, 136, 140, 164, 167, application with modular organization
213, 221, 224225, 300, 352, 357 of operations, 346
enclitic, 46, 52, 61, 69, 73, 121123, 127, Competition among vocabulary entries,
131, 137, 144, 182, 237, 241, 243, 244, 116119
255, 256, 264, 265, 267, 272, 289292, Complementizer, 3032, 51, 89, 90, 103108,
297, 299, 304, 305, 310, 313, 315317, 140, 167, 170174, 191, 196, 246249,
319321, 349, 350, 352 302, 317, 334, 363, 376
epenthetic, 256 Complementizer agreement, 1, 3033, 36, 47,
ergative, 30, 34, 35, 39, 40, 46, 52, 5761, 51, 60, 81, 103, 108, 111, 124, 131, 150,
66, 72, 73, 120, 121, 123127, 129132, 151, 159, 166, 229, 230, 234, 272, 274,
135137, 139, 142, 175, 176, 178183, 275, 278, 279, 309, 343, 344, 363, 376
190, 196, 203, 212, 215, 217227, distribution of exponents, 137142, 167,
229233, 275, 278292, 296, 297, 301, 362
302, 314, 316318, 320, 321, 327, 329, and Multiple Agree, 156158, 162
331, 332, 346, 347, 350354, 357, and plural Metathesis, 267269, 273
358, 375 structure and derivation of, 8895
expletive, 46 Conditional, 30, 39, 40, 107, 108, 195, 328,
and finite heads, 30, 35, 36, 40, 44, 52, 333336
5658, 66, 69, 76, 81 Constraints and repairs, 1, 3, 239
first singular, 96, 99, 116, 123125, 130, Contextual neutralization, 202, 204
147152, 154, 156, 181, 190, 206208, Contextual restriction, 11, 112119, 121, 123,
214217, 227, 232, 234, 282, 343, 124, 145, 146, 150, 151, 154, 155,
346, 365 159161, 163, 167, 190, 199, 287, 332
generation, 5256 Contextual restrictions on Vocabulary
movement, 52, 5662, 96 Insertion, 112116
placement, 2, 5064, 247, 248, 252, 358 Counterbleeding, 3, 346349, 356, 357, 359
proclitic, 52, 61, 69, 73, 121, 122, 136, 137, Counterfeeding, 193, 359
164, 181, 182, 218, 255, 265, 287291, Covert movement, 260, 261
305, 308310, 313, 317321, 327, 332, C-Peninitiality, 259261
348353, 355, 357, 358 CP-Noninitiality, 336, 338
pronominal, 25, 30, 3336, 41, 5052, Crossmodular Structural Parallelism, 3, 47,
5658, 6264, 73, 80, 96, 98, 103, 108, 133, 234235, 365370
111, 112, 122, 137, 163, 165, 166, 198,
199, 243, 255, 293, 298, 314, 321, 371
Cliticization, 3, 7, 8, 17, 22, 25, 3033, 35, 41, D
42, 44, 45, 49109, 120, 144, 145, 225, Dative, 19, 23, 24, 34, 49, 59, 6467, 7478,
257, 275, 277, 279, 290, 295, 296, 310, 98, 102, 120, 128, 150, 192, 221,
313, 346, 349, 352, 357, 359, 365, 371 222, 224, 310, 373. See also Clitic,
Clitics vs. agreement, 95101, 108, 109, dative; First Dative Impoverishment;
137140, 362365 Agreement with dative and ergative
Comparison between Biscayan and arguments
Guipuscoan, 141, 142, 320, 351 and Agree-Copy, 8688, 119, 157, 159
Comparison between Ibarrangelu and on allocutive clitics, 316
Kortezubi, 267, 269, 270, 372 case assignment, 21, 23, 32, 60, 71
Comparison between Lekeitio and Oati, 308, and Differential Object Marking, 17, 25, 35
310, 311, 372 feature composition of, 7, 54
408 Subject Index
Dative (cont.) 326, 329, 332, 351, 355, 378, 379,

and KP, 5355 381, 382
and plural marking in auxiliaries, 137139, Division of labor between constraints and
362 repairs, 239, 368
and pro-drop, 25, 52, 213 Division of labor in word formation, 311
Dative agreement, 32, 50, 51, 81, 88, 90, 101, DM. See Distributed Morphology (DM)
138, 150, 160, 309 DOM. See Differential Object Marking
Dative displacement, 88, 306311, 372, 373 Domain Condition on Edge Constraints, 323,
Dative Doubling, 238, 286, 303307, 309, 311, 326, 330, 333, 336338
340 Doubling, 3, 6, 10, 46, 142, 237240, 263, 264,
Dative Doubling vs. First Singular Dative 285, 293, 322326, 340, 343, 346, 359,
Impoverishment, 311 370. See also Dative Doubling; Ergative
Dative experiencer, 23, 24, 65, 66, 69, 71, 72, Doubling; Generalized Reduplication;
7678, 80, 84, 103, 346 Root Reduplication
Dative flag, 127132 and allomorphy, 301
Dative goal, 24, 64, 66, 75, 83, 98, 99 of allocutive clitic, 317322
Dative Plural Clitic Metathesis, 272, 273 interaction with other repair rules, 282,
Default agreement, 32, 51, 81, 95103, 109, 286, 287
151, 365 Long-Distance Plural Doubling, 270
Default Cliticization, 103 and plural clitics, 267274, 364
Deletion, 9, 46, 73, 76, 87, 116, 131, 149, Plural Doubling, 270
150, 175, 178, 179, 183, 185187, 189, in Spanish agreement morphology,
195198, 201235, 242, 243, 260, 269, 241245
325, 326, 344, 347, 349, 368 Dual, 202, 208, 209
Derivational order of operations, 341, 346 Duke-of-York, 46
Diachronic origins of Impoverishment,
222223
Dialectal comparison, 368 E
Dialectal variation Elsewhere Condition, 60, 249, 284, 307, 340
in dative displacement, 373 Epenthesis, 2, 122, 128, 130, 131, 167,
in Ergative Doubling, 46 169176, 178, 180193, 196, 198, 223,
in Ergative Metathesis, 14, 46, 300 237, 238, 240, 255258, 263, 304, 354,
in Linearization of plural clitics, 263264 368. See also Clitic, epenthetic
in Metathesis of allocutive clitics, 373 Ergative, 19, 2425, 30, 41, 42, 49, 370. See
in Participant Dissimilation, 14, 46, 368 also Agreement with dative and ergative
in PCC effects, 7478, 300 arguments; Allomorphy, voice-sensitive
in phonological processes, 143, 263 contextual allomorphy of T in the
in realization of plural clitic, 135 context of an ergative clitic; Clitic,
in realization of the root, 373 ergative; Impoverishment of ergative
in the realization of clitics, 135 case; Third Ergative Plural Clitic
Differential Object Marking, 15, 17, 25, 35, 78 Impoverishment
Diphthong Raising, 169, 175177, 193 and Absolutive Promotion, 7072, 346,
Direct object, 25, 35, 57, 64, 68, 225 349, 351, 357
Dissimilation, 2, 46, 183, 185, 207, 212, 235, on allocutive clitics, 315317, 322
346349, 352, 354, 356358 case assignment, 2023, 32
Dissimilatory deletion, 208209 feature composition of, 7, 297
Dissimilatory Epenthesis, 188, 191193, 198 features and allomorphy of the auxiliary
Distributed Morphology (DM), 26, 8, 45, 95, root, 99, 100, 114116, 143146,
163, 262, 340, 361, 362 149151, 154156, 159162, 221, 332,
Ditransitive, 17, 23, 34, 35, 65, 66, 72, 74, 344
7680, 83, 84, 87, 94, 125, 126, 128, and KP, 20, 5355, 7172
132, 135, 145, 146, 150, 151, 153158, and plural marking in auxiliaries, 137139,
160, 163, 199, 224, 225, 229, 233, 281, 362
282, 284, 287, 288, 292, 301, 303306, and pro-drop, 25, 52
Subject Index 409
Ergative agreement, 85 First Dative Impoverishment, 87, 90, 93, 139,

Ergative Doubling, 46, 240, 275, 282286, 231, 303, 307309, 343, 344, 376, 378,
289, 292, 297, 300, 301, 304, 305, 307, 379
318, 320, 321, 324 First person, 8, 9, 40, 79, 87, 88, 93, 124, 125,
of third person clitics, 275, 288292, 301 130, 131, 133, 147, 151, 154, 157, 159,
Ergative Impoverishment, 15, 24, 73, 74, 223, 160, 164, 175, 183, 202, 204, 208, 214,
231, 344 217, 279, 281, 302308, 311, 327, 329,
Ergative Metathesis, 14, 3537, 46, 56, 137, 331, 353, 355, 356, 358, 366. See also
150, 151, 154, 156, 208, 217, 218, Allomorphy of first singular clitics;
274276, 278281, 283287, 293, Clitic, first singular
301303, 305308, 310, 317323, 325, [participant] feature and first person clitics,
327, 329, 331333, 337340, 345, 352, 116, 124, 147, 149, 151, 154, 206208,
355, 358, 360, 365, 369, 372, 376, 214, 215, 227, 232, 282, 343, 365
380382 First Plural T Impoverishment, 153155, 217,
past tense restriction on, 151, 279, 296, 232, 233, 353
300302 First Singular Clitic Impoverishment, 124,
referred to as ergative displacement, 237, 147150, 152, 154, 156, 206, 214217,
274 227, 232, 234, 282, 343, 346
of third person clitics, 275, 288292 First Singular T Impoverishment, 147, 149,
Ergative Plural Clitic Metathesis, 273 151154, 156, 159, 161, 231, 232
Evidential, 333335, 337 Fission, 5, 9, 35, 45, 47, 89, 92, 106, 112, 115,
Expletive, 102, 103, 237, 239, 296. See also 116, 127, 129, 132136, 139, 141, 142,
Clitic, expletive 219, 224, 226, 227, 229, 237, 263265,
Exponence Conversion component, 5, 8, 21, 280, 281, 289, 290, 343, 344, 361364,
86, 132, 134, 219, 226, 231, 280, 316, 366367, 370372
362, 363 Flapping, 179, 188, 190, 193
general properties of, 343, 344 Force, 91, 108, 131, 213, 216, 247250,
257261, 269, 281, 295, 306, 331, 349
Force-Noninitiality, 249
F Force-VT Metathesis, 248, 249
Feature Markedness component, 5, 8, 46, 201, Formal/Colloquial Impoverishment, 206
202, 231, 234, 235, 343, 352, 354, 356, Formal/colloquial neutralization, 205206
357 Functional Head Approach, 62, 63
Features, 711, 5357, 8183, 8698, 103
108, 162, 163, 166, 167, 199, 202208,
211, 231235, 296301, 343345, G
361370. See also Appl-Insertion; Gender, 7, 9, 202, 204, 210, 211
Case features; Feature Markedness distinctions in colloquial forms, 39, 40,
component; Have-Insertion; M-feature; 297, 313, 317321
-features; Vocabulary Insertion Gender distinctions in Basque, 39
consonantal, 188, 194 Generalized Reduplication, 3, 10, 46, 239264,
copying. (see Agree-Copy) 266270, 273, 274, 280, 283, 285, 286,
deletion, 2, 9, 45, 73, 115, 148, 201204, 293, 301, 302, 304, 308, 309, 321324,
364. (see also Impoverishment) 331, 332, 340, 372
insertion. (see Morphological Concord Glide Formation, 6, 178, 182, 187, 189, 193
component) Glide Fortition, 169, 172, 173, 178, 182, 187,
reversal, 73, 87, 148, 202, 203 193
splitting. (see Fission)
vowel, 183, 185
Feeding, 2, 45, 91, 193, 340, 341, 345349, H
353, 358, 359 have/be alternation, 144
First and second person, 17, 25, 39, 54, 64, 65, Have-Insertion, 115, 116, 144, 146, 219, 234,
69, 76, 80, 127, 151, 214, 329 316, 343, 344, 373
410 Subject Index
Head Movement, 3, 7, 8, 31, 33, 45, 49, 51, 57, L

58, 6163, 103, 105, 129, 298, 310, 334 Last Resort, 70, 71, 296
Head Movement Constraint (HMC), 33, 129 Late Insertion, 11
Hierarchical relations in the Linear Operations Lexical case, 60
component, 322, 338 Lexical Phonology, 7, 369370
Hierarchical vs. linear statement of Linearization, 2, 6, 10, 19, 45, 46, 56, 60, 61,
Noninitiality and Peninitiality, 324 63, 66, 76, 88, 90, 114, 115, 121, 137,
HMC. See Head Movement Constraint (HMC) 150, 201, 211, 215, 235, 237, 238, 240,
Hypermetaphony, 171, 172, 176, 186188, 245, 254, 261, 263274, 276, 277, 285,
192, 193 303, 308, 322340, 343345, 347, 349,
353, 359, 364
of clitics, 60, 61, 88
I of dative clitics, 66
Idioms, 21, 37 of plural clitics, 263274
i-Epenthesis, 174, 176, 186, 193 Linearization-dependent allomorphy, 6,
Impersonal, 203, 210 114116, 124126, 145146, 150156,
Impoverishment, 9, 11, 45, 46, 73, 115, 116, 159164, 211, 238, 245, 246, 250, 264,
124, 146156, 162, 167, 198, 199, 272275, 280, 282284, 287, 291293,
201235, 237, 239, 240, 297, 299, 301, 304, 327, 331, 332, 340, 351352
308, 309, 340346, 359, 363, 364, Linear Operations component, 238, 240, 260,
366368, 370, 372, 373. See also 263, 265, 266, 271275, 279, 280, 283,
Ergative Impoverishment; Feature 286, 293, 300304, 306, 308, 309, 312,
deletion; Feature reversal; First Dative 321326, 329, 330, 332, 336, 338, 340,
Impoverishment; Formal/Colloquial 353, 355, 357, 364
Impoverishment; Markedness-targeted Lithuanian reflexive, 252, 255
Impoverishment; Markedness-triggered L-morpheme, 30, 35, 52, 56, 61, 66, 101, 137,
Impoverishment; Obliteration; 167, 217, 218, 277, 285, 287, 302, 316,
Participant Dissimilation; Plural Clitic 317, 320, 321, 327, 329, 375
Impoverishment Local Dislocation, 238, 244250, 252, 255,
vs. M-feature Insertion, 93, 94 340, 369
Impoverishment and Crossmodular Structural Local Plural Metathesis, 263271, 273, 325,
Parallelism, 234235, 365370 326, 331, 364, 369
Impoverishment of ergative case, 115, 297 Long-Distance Plural Doubling, 270
Indirectly transitive, 59, 61, 66, 98 Low Vowel Assimilation, 169, 188, 191
Indirect object, 19, 23, 24, 64, 68, 373 L-Support, 46, 216, 219, 275, 277279, 282,
Inherent case, 20 286288, 293, 296, 300, 307, 323, 324,
Interaction between Absolutive Promotion 329, 331333, 337, 348350, 353355
and Ergative Metathesis, 14, 35, 217, LV-Assimilation, 184, 185, 191, 193, 194, 198
344345, 349352, 358, 360
Interaction between Absolutive Promotion,
Participant Dissimilation, and Ergative M
Metathesis, 345, 369 Main finite verbs, 3639, 335
Interaction between Participant Dissimilation Markedness, 13, 5, 6, 8, 9, 45, 46, 68, 94,
and Absolutive Promotion, 14, 113, 119, 155, 161, 201235, 341, 343,
344349, 359, 369 344, 346, 348, 352, 354, 356358, 363,
Interaction between Participant Dissimilation 366368, 370, 373
and Ergative Metathesis, 352356 3/3-Markedness, 229
Interaction between Participant Dissimilation Markedness-targeted Impoverishment, 203,
and Root Reduplication, 355356 212, 224
Markedness-triggered Impoverishment, 202,
212
K Matrix complementizers, 105, 302
k-deletion, 223 Metathesis, 2, 3, 6, 10, 14, 3537, 45, 46,
KP, 20, 23, 5355, 60, 61, 71, 72, 81, 82 56, 115, 123, 124, 137, 141, 142, 150,
Subject Index 411
151, 154, 156, 164, 199, 202, 208, NHV-Deletion, 185187, 193
211, 217, 218, 235, 237250, 252, 254, Nonapplicative intransitive, 37, 38, 144, 146,
255, 263303, 305323, 325327, 329, 287, 316, 376
331333, 337340, 343346, 349360, Nondistinct wh-phrases, 260
363366, 368370, 372, 376, 380382 Nonhigh Vowel Deletion, 183, 185, 230
of allocutive clitic, 312, 315, 321, 340 Noninitiality, 10, 46, 101, 237240, 246255,
of object clitics in Old Irish, 246, 249 261, 275283, 293, 335, 336, 339, 350,
M-feature, 93, 94, 139, 141, 142 368
MFS. See Morphosyntactic feature in nonclausal domains, 250255
specification (MFS) Nonlinearity of Impoverishment, 211
Minimal Distance, 269, 306, 340 n-Palatalization, 175, 176, 186, 188, 193
Minimal Structural Change, 324, 331 Number neutralization, 224228, 230
Mirror Principle, 261, 262 Number neutralization in Basque clitics, 119,
Modal particles, 108, 194, 240, 276, 277, 322, 223
326328, 333339, 368
and CP-Noninitiality, 336
and T-Noninitiality, 326, 333339 O
Modular architecture, 3, 4, 64, 201, 211, 215, Obliteration, 9, 45, 46, 76, 116, 201, 202, 204,
341360 211221, 231, 233235, 343, 344, 347,
Modular organization of operations, 234, 354, 348, 352357, 359, 370
369370 Obstruent Palatalization, 177, 188, 189, 193
Monotransitive, 17, 19, 34, 35, 38, 39, 58, 125, 1/1 and 2/2 combinations, 4044
142, 145, 146, 148151, 153155, 158, Opaque, 45, 46, 170, 188, 193, 251, 346352,
159, 162, 190, 216, 217, 225, 285, 287, 358, 360
298, 301, 302, 306, 316, 317, 320, 377, Order among Impoverishment rules, 231, 234
380 Orthography, 11, 1516, 95, 112, 138, 170
Morpheme order, 61, 120121, 237, 240263, Overt movement, 258, 261
300
Morpheme-specific Linearization, 261, 265
Morphological component, 1, 3, 235, 344, 369 P
Morphological Concord component, 5, 93, Paradigmatic markedness, 204208, 215, 231
143, 146, 219, 344, 362, 363 Participant Dissimilation, 5, 14, 36, 46, 156,
general properties of, 343, 344 201, 207, 209, 211223, 226228,
Morphological epenthesis, 255258, 354 232235, 344348, 352359, 365,
Morphosyntactic feature specification (MFS), 368370
112114, 117119, 121, 124, 147, PartP, 5355, 61, 71, 81, 82
159161, 199, 287 Past Participant T Impoverishment, 148, 151,
Movement verbs, 24, 7478 153, 155, 203, 206, 232, 234, 302
Multiple Agree, 51, 8086, 109, 156, 308, 365 Past tense, 17, 2931, 37, 38, 75, 76, 104108,
Multiple agreement, 14, 113, 119, 156162, 124, 125, 149151, 155, 165, 167, 170,
199, 309, 373 172174, 181, 204, 205, 217, 224, 229,
Multiple wh-movement, 258261 230, 234, 273, 278281, 284, 286, 287,
M-word, 7, 8, 45, 46, 82, 113, 115, 209, 211, 291, 292, 294, 296298, 300306, 317,
213, 214, 216, 217, 226, 228, 229, 231, 320, 321, 326, 327, 331, 349, 350, 354,
233235, 239, 252, 276, 277, 324, 330, 356, 357, 364, 375, 376, 380382
331, 333339, 345, 347, 354, 359, 368 and complementizer realization, 104108,
174
N and Dative Doubling, 303306
Neutralization, 2, 9, 40, 92, 94, 113, 117119, as an environment for Impoverishment,
121, 123125, 150, 189, 199, 202, 149151, 204
204206, 208211, 224228, 230, 231, and Ergative Metathesis, 279281, 284,
280, 293, 296, 297, 299, 319, 321, 332, 286, 292, 296298, 300302, 350, 354,
340, 367, 370 356357
of number, 94, 224228 and Root Reduplication, 327
412 Subject Index
Past tense complementizer, 106, 108, 196, 230, Postsyntactic analyses of Ergative Metathesis,
317, 376 274293, 296302
PCC. See Person-Case Constraint (PCC) Postsyntactic component, 46, 8, 9, 19, 21, 32,
Peninitiality, 239, 240, 258, 261, 339 51, 53, 55, 56, 60, 66, 73, 74, 93, 101,
Person-Case Constraint (PCC), 24, 35, 45, 49, 120, 134, 143, 237, 238, 263, 275, 283,
56, 6380, 159, 221, 299, 341, 342, 298, 308, 315, 317, 341, 343, 349, 354,
346, 348, 350, 351, 360, 366, 371 359
effects, 24, 35, 50, 51, 61, 6365, 67, 68, PreC-Epenthesis, 171, 174176, 178, 184, 188,
70, 7478, 80, 101, 137, 221, 299, 300, 189, 193, 196
360 Precomplementizer Epenthesis, 171, 174176,
repair, 24, 63, 64, 6971, 74, 7880, 346, 178, 184, 188, 189, 193, 196
360 Psych predicate, 23, 24, 65, 69, 71, 7477, 79,
Person-Number Order, 265, 267, 271, 281, 84, 346, 358
326, 330, 340
-features, 5, 7, 8, 30, 32, 35, 49, 51, 5355,
68, 75, 8083, 86, 8891, 93, 96, 99, R
100, 105, 108, 109, 113, 115, 119, 120, Raising, 20, 21, 102, 169, 175177, 187, 193
139, 143, 148, 150, 156160, 204, 214, Realization
279, 302, 309, 310, 312, 318, 351, 363, of agreement, 146148, 150, 151, 154,
365, 373 163168, 206, 207
Phonological deletion, 9, 222, 223 of auxiliary root, 33, 50
Phonological rule, 6, 9, 45, 91, 116, 122, 131, of clitics, 121127, 365
138, 166, 169198, 222, 223, 230, 237, of plural clitic, 135
257, 375 Reciprocal, 41, 42, 252, 253
ordering, 198 Reduplication, 3, 6, 10, 46, 154, 235, 239264,
1Pl Impoverishment, 216 266270, 273, 274, 280, 283, 285, 286,
1Pl Obliteration, 216, 217, 233, 347, 352, 354, 293, 301, 302, 304, 308, 309, 321324,
355, 357 326332, 340, 345, 355356, 366,
Plural Absolutive Doubling, 271, 325 368369, 372, 376, 381, 382
Plural clitic, 21, 30, 31, 35, 38, 46, 56, 64, Reflexive, 4144, 210, 245, 252255, 259,
89, 92, 112, 115, 116, 120, 123, 127, 294, 314
132, 134138, 142, 167, 169, 174, 176, Reflexive Metathesis, 254, 255
180, 182, 207, 209, 217, 221, 222, 224, Reflexive-VT Metathesis, 254
227230, 240, 263274, 280, 284, 303, Relation between Doubling and Metathesis,
304, 325, 326, 340, 362364, 369, 371, 343
372, 375 Relative ordering of paradigmatic and
Plural clitic and complementizer agreement, syntagmatic-based Impoverishment,
166, 269, 376 231, 234
Plural Clitic Impoverishment, 5, 46, 201, 205, Relevance of person and case in realization
207, 209, 223230, 232234, 363, 368 of plural clitic, 21, 135136, 226, 229,
Plural Doubling, 270 304, 372
Plural Fission, 116, 132136, 219, 224, 226, Repairs to Noninitiality, 302322
227, 229, 263265, 281, 289, 290 r-Epenthesis, 169, 170, 174, 176, 193
Pluralizer, 137, 138, 361, 364 Restructuring, 255257
Plural marker, 137, 138, 166, 167 Resyllabification, 179
Plural marking in second person, 9195, 138, Root Reduplication, 154, 240, 322, 326332,
140 345, 355356, 368, 376, 381, 382
Plural Metathesis, 263274, 325, 326, 331,
364, 369
Plural morphology, 45, 47, 137142
Plural-Participant Markedness, 226 S
Positional neutralization, 113, 117119, 121, SA. See Speech act (SA)
123125, 199, 280, 332, 340 SAP. See Speech act phrase (SAP)
Subject Index 413
Second person, 17, 25, 46, 54, 64, 65, 69, 71, T-Noninitiality, 274277, 279, 280, 282, 283,
76, 80, 9195, 113, 119, 122, 123, 127, 286, 287, 289, 293, 298322, 324326,
135, 138, 140, 144, 148, 152, 163, 201, 331, 333340, 342, 348350, 353355,
205207, 214219, 221, 222, 225, 228, 359, 368, 371, 372
234, 272, 284286, 296, 312, 313, 315, Topics for future cross-dialectal research, 374
332, 347, 348, 352, 357, 365, 373 T-Peninitiality, 266, 267, 271, 281, 325, 326,
and formal/colloquial distinctions, 39, 40 330, 331, 337340, 364, 369, 372
Second person pronouns in Basque, 92 Transitive, 1921, 29, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 46,
s-Epenthesis, 131, 170, 175, 176, 181, 193, 52, 56, 5961, 66, 94, 9799, 114,
304 115, 143150, 152156, 165167, 176,
Speech act (SA), 315 218221, 282, 284, 287289, 300302,
Speech act phrase (SAP), 314, 315 316, 318, 332, 343, 351, 352, 354
Spellout, 111, 4447, 116, 132, 169, 198, Transitive subject, 19, 23
231, 251, 259, 261, 341, 359, 362 Triggering constraint, 238, 263, 331, 369
Spurious se, 210 Two-step procedure in agreement, 86, 156
Syllabification, 2, 170173, 176187, 193, 244
Syncretism, 34, 68, 73, 74, 9395, 112, 116,
156, 164, 205, 221, 302, 367
U
Syntactic analyses of Ergative Metathesis, 296
Unaccusative, 1921, 24, 59, 65, 74
Syntactic case, 21, 53, 84, 85
Unaccusative motion verbs, 69, 71, 74, 167
Syntagmatic markedness, 5, 203, 204,
Unaccusative subject, 19, 21
208212, 226, 229231, 235, 346, 363,
Unergative, 19, 35, 59, 97, 98, 101
368
Unergative subject, 19
Syntagmatic Participant Markedness, 214
Syntax component, 60, 86, 315, 321, 327, 363
Syntax of allocutive clitics, 312, 373
Syntax of auxiliaries, 2936, 95 V
VI. See Vocabulary Insertion (VI)
Vocabulary entry, 10, 11, 92, 93, 95, 114, 119,
T 134, 145, 146, 148, 149, 152, 153, 155,
Tense in complementizers, 105 160, 282, 366
Terminal node deletion, 212 Vocabulary Insertion (VI), 5, 6, 10, 11, 45, 84,
Third Ditransitive T Impoverishment, 154, 89, 94, 104, 106, 111121, 124, 125,
156, 233 134, 152, 156, 158, 162, 169, 199, 201,
Third Ergative Plural Clitic Impoverishment, 208, 211, 216, 224, 237, 238, 244246,
229, 234 250, 263, 264, 272275, 280, 282285,
Third person, 35, 41, 45, 5052, 5456, 61, 287, 293, 298, 300, 301, 308, 321, 322,
62, 6568, 70, 74, 82, 85, 86, 94, 96, 332, 340, 343, 344, 363, 367
97, 99101, 112, 116, 120, 122, 123, category features and, 113, 117119
125127, 131, 134138, 140, 146, contextual restrictions in, 113116
147, 149151, 153156, 159162, 164, and Fission, 134, 367
166, 167, 176, 183, 186, 203205. and M-features, 94
See also Allomorphy of third person ordering with respect to other operations:
clitics; Clitic, absence of third person 238, 244246, 250, 263, 264, 272275,
absolutive 280, 282285, 287, 293, 301, 321, 322,
Third Plural Clitic Impoverishment, 209, 228, 332, 343, 344
229, 233 with more than one set of -features: 113,
Third Plural T Impoverishment, 153, 154, 232, 156162, 363
233 Voiced Stop Deletion (VS-Deletion), 127, 130,
3/3 effects, 208211, 228 179, 180, 186, 190, 192, 193, 196198
Timing of Local Dislocation, 238, 244, 246, Vowel Dissimilation, 173, 183185, 187, 193,
250, 340 194
414 Subject Index
Vowel Epenthesis, 130, 173, 180183, 185, W

187, 190, 192, 193, 223 Wackernagel requirement, 46, 252
VR -Noninitiality, 254 Warlpiri Dual Impoverishment, 209
VS-Deletion. See Voiced Stop Deletion Weather verb, 103
(VS-Deletion) Word-internal Wackernagel requirement, 252
Index of Basque Auxiliaries
This index contains all Lekeitio, Ondarru, and Zamudio auxiliaries used in num-
bered examples throughout the book. Each entry is labeled using the surface form
found in the tables in Appendix A. Subentries are used to distinguish ambiguous
forms, which occurs in cases where the same form is used in different dialects, or
when a single form is syncretic for different auxiliaries within the same dialect.
Subentries are also used in cases where the form in the text is different from the
form given in Appendix A. This can be due to clause-type marking in embedded
sentences, to phonological processes, or to various other causes (such as idiolectal
variation in allomorphy). Where necessary, these differences are explained in the
text. These subentries are annotated with the superscripts E (for embedding), P
(for phonology), and O (for other). Occurrences of each entry are indicated in
the form chapter number:example number.
d-0-u,
/ 3:(135), 3:(147) / E , 2:(130), 3:(122a)
d-au-0-en
d-a Ondarru, 1:(50ab), 1:(52a, c), 2:(17),
Lekeitio, 2:(14), 2:(31) 2:(107), 2:(123), 2:(126ab), 4:(41)
d-a-laE , 1:(35), 2:(128) d-ab-0-ela
/ E , 3:(122b)
Ondarru, 1:(37), 1:(52b) / E , 3:(122a)

d-ab-0-en
r-a-laE,P , 2:(123), 2:(126a) r-au-0/ P , 2:(54), 2:(117)
r-eP , 2:(116) d-eu-0,/ 2:(125), 5:(224)
Zamudio, 2:(136), 5:(221) d-i(-s)
d-eP , 5:(172) d-i-s-enE , 2:(129)
d-a-k-ie, 3:(178179) t-i-sP , 3:(209)
d-a-t, 3:(130) d-ira(-s), 2:(137), 5:(220),
d-a-tzu 5:(233)
Intransitive, 2:(58) d-ire(-s)
d-a-tzu-e t-ireP , 3:(207)
Transitive d-o-gu, 3:(143144)
y-a-tzu-eO , 4:(35), 4:(37) d-o-uP , 3:(143144), 3:(147)
d-ab-0-e
/ d-o-sku-0/
Ondarru, 2:(109110), 2:(122) sku-0/ P , 3:(94), 4:(23)
/ P , 2:(67)
r-ab-0-e d-o-st-0,/ 3:(130), 3:(161162)
d-au-0/ d-o-sta-0,/ 3:(161162)
Lekeitio, 2:(108) o-sta-0/ P , 2:(127)
E , 3:(122b)
d-au-0-ela
/ sta-0/ P , 2:(50)

416 Index of Basque Auxiliaries
d-o-sta-s-endu-e-n 3Pl Dat

3Sg Abs tza-0/ P , 4:(51b)
sta-s-endu-e-nP , 5:(203b) 3Sg Dat, 3:(158)
d-o-sta-s-endu-n o-tza-0/ P , 2:(124)
3Sg Abs tza-0/ P , 2:(25), 2:(119), 4:(51a)
d-o-sta-s-endu-leE , 5:(209a) d-o-tza-gu
sta-s-endu-nP , 5:(203a), 5:(206), 3Sg Dat, 3:(149150)
5:(212) d-o-tza-uP , 3:(149150)
d-o-sta-su, 3:(159160), 5:(204bc) d-o-tza-n, 3:(111112)
d-o-sta-su-leE , 5:(208) d-o-tza-ra-s, 3:(197)
sta-suP , 1:(20), 2:(47), 2:(105), 4:(27), d-o-tza-su
5:(204a), 5:(205) Lekeitio, 3Sg Dat, 3:(155156)
d-o-ste-su, 3:(159160) Ondarru, 3Pl Dat
d-o-su tza-suP , 4:(43b)
Ondarru, 1Pl Abs monotransitive Ondarru, 3Sg Dat, 3:(155156)
suP , 4:(29), 4:(32) tza-suP , 4:(24), 4:(43a)
Ondarru, 3Sg Abs monotransitive d-o-tza-su-e
d-o-su-leE , 3:(201) Ondarru, 3Sg Dat
suP , 3:(224) tza-su-eP , 1:(47)
t-o-suP , 5:(223) d-o-tza-t
Ondarru, ditransitive Lekeitio, 1:(7c), 1:(30c), 1:(39c),
suP , 4:(20), 4:(30), 6:(6) 3:(153154)
Zamudio, monotransitive, 2:(5), 2:(15), Ondarru, 3Pl Abs
2:(32), 3:(24) tza-tP , 2:(113)
o-suP , 5:(224) Ondarru, 3Sg Abs, 3:(153154)
suP , 2:(106), 3:(220) tza-tP , 2:(55), 2:(62), 2:(118), 4:(42)
d-o-su-e d-o-tza-t-e-s, 5:(88)
Ondarru, 3Sg Abs monotransitive d-o-tza-u
su-eP , 5:(108), 5:(134a) 3Sg Dat, 2:(48), 3:(149150)
d-o-su-s d-o-tze-a-s, 3:(151), 3:(180181)
Zamudio, monotransitive, 3:(43) d-o-tze-su
d-o-t 3Sg Dat, 3:(155156)
Lekeitio, 1:(23a), 1:(35), 1:(46), 2:(128) d-o-tze-t, 3:(153154)
o-tP , 3:(215) d-o-tzu-0-e
/
t-o-tP , 1:(28) Ondarru
Ondarru, 1:(15ab), 1:(23b), 1:(53a), / P , 2:(35), 2:(6566)
tzu-0-e
2:(4546) d-o-tzu-au
r-o-tP , 1:(55a), 2:(115), 3:(198) 2Sg Dat, 3:(204206)
Zamudio, 5:(100) d-o-tzu-e-0/
d-o-t-es, 3:(164), 5:(101) Ondarru, 2:(112)
d-o-t-es-en-eanE , 2:(94) d-o-tzu-e-ra-s, 5:(89)
d-o-tz-0-e
/ d-o-tzu-e-t-as, 3:(166167)
Lekeitio, 3:(125) d-o-tzu-gu
Ondarru, 3Sg Dat, 3:(125) 2Sg Dat, 3:(204205)
d-o-tz-0-ie,
/ 3:(125) d-o-tzu-uP , 3:(204205)
d-o-tz-e-0-s,
/ 1:(36) d-o-tzu-t
d-o-tz-o Lakeitio, 2:(74)
Zamudio Zamudio, 5:(222), 5:(231)
tz-oP , 3:(2728), 5:(131a) d-o-u, 3:(143144), 3:(147)
Lekeitio d-o-u-enE , 2:(124), 2:(127)
o-tz-o-n-ianE,P , 5:(131b) r-o-uP , 5:(135a)
d-o-tz-u d-otxu-a-s
o-tz-uP , 3:(216) txu-asP , 2:(114)
d-o-tza-0/ txu-a-s-en-inE,P , 2:(95), 3:(49)
Index of Basque Auxiliaries 417
dx-a-k-e, 3:(178179) n-e-tza-n

dx-a-ko-s-en, 3:(123124) 3Sg Abs, 1:(6), 6:(10)
dx-a-t, 3:(130) n-eb-an
Lekeitio, 3:(6768), 3:(119120),
3:(138139), 3:(141), 5:(102), 5:(107),
g-a-ko, 1:(17), 1:(19), 1:(22), 2:(57), 2:(120) 5:(237)
g-a-ko-e, 3:(178179), 5:(67) Ondarru, 3:(119120), 3:(138139),
g-a-ko-s-en, 3:(123124) 3:(141), 5:(242)
g-a-sku, 4:(22) n-eu-0,
/ 3:(129), 3:(134)
g-a-sta, 2:(38), 2:(49), 2:(76), 2:(86), n-eu-0-re,
/ 3:(108109)
3:(130) n-eu-en, 3:(119-120), 3:(138139), 3:(141)
g-a-tzu-s, 3:(48a) n-eu-tza-n, 2:(135)
g-aitu-0,
/ 3:(106), 3:(133) n-eu-tza-s-an, 3:(170171)
g-aitu-0-e,
/ 3:(127128) n-eu-tzu-n, 5:(237)
g-aitxu-0-e(-s),
/ 3:(127128) n-eun-tze-n, 3:(121)
g-aitxu-0-s-en,
/ 2:(134), 5:(94) n-eun-tze-s-an, 3:(168169)
g-aitxu-0(-s)
/ n-iddu-su-n, 1:(31)
Ditransitive, 2:(75), 2:(90), 2:(99), 3:(95) n-itx-an, 3:(193194)
Monotransitive, 3:(106), 3:(133) n-itz-an, 3:(193194)
g-aittu-0-n-a
/ E,P , 3:(97) n-itz-en, 3:(193194)
g-as, 3:(210)
g-atxu-0(-s),
/ 3:(106), 5:(135b)
g-atxu-0-e,
/ 3:(127128) s-a-n
g-endu-an, 3:(113114), 5:(103a) Lekeitio, 3:(213)
g-endu-n s-a-laE , 2:(134)
Ondarru, 3Sg Abs, 3:(113114), 5:(136a), Ondarru, 3:(221), 5:(230ab)
5:(235) Zamudio, 5:(104), 5:(175)
Zamudio, 2:(111), 3:(113114) s-aitu-0-
/ 0-e,
/ 3:(176177)
k-endu-nP , 3:(208) s-aitu-0-s,
/ 2:(100)
g-endu-s-an, 5:(103b) s-aitxu-0-/ 0-e,
/ 3:(176177)
g-ia-n, 3:(187188) s-aitxu-0(-s),
/ 2:(100)
g-i-ddu-0-n,
/ 5:(136b) s-aitxu-e-t-en
g-ii-an, 3:(187188) s-aittu-e-t-enP , 5:(99b)
s-aitxu-t, 3:(190191)
s-ara
n-a-su Lekeitio
Lekeitio, ditransitive, 2:(92) s-ari-enE , 3:(117118)
Ondarru, 1:(7b), 1:(21), 1:(30b), 1:(39b), Zamudio, intransitive, 5:(222), 5:(231)
2:(4), 2:(21) s-ari-enE , 3:(117118)
n-a-su-e-n, 5:(66), 5:(138) Zamudio, transitive, 4:(21), 4:(38)
n-a-su-s, 3:(96), 7:(3) s-ari-e
n-ab-0-e
/ Lekeitio, 3:(131)
Lekeitio, monotransitive, 3:(108109) Zamudio, intransitive, 3:(131)
Ondarru, 2:(69), 3:(108109) s-as, 2:(23), 5:(7)
n-ab-0-en,
/ 3:(7071) s-as-e, 1:(49)
n-as s-atxu-0-/ 0-e,
/ 3:(176177)
Lekeitio, 1:(48) s-atxu-0-e,
/ 2:(64)
Ondarru, 1:(53b), 2:(63) s-atxu-au
Zamudio, 1:(7a), 1:(30a), 1:(39a), 2:(73), 2Pl Abs, 4:(44)
3:(51), 5:(164a) s-atxu-e-t, 5:(70b)
n-au-0/ s-atxu-t, 2:(52), 2:(72), 3:(190191), 5:(99a)
Lekeitio, ditransitive, 2:(91), 5:(156) s-endu-e-n
Lekeitio, monotransitive, 3:(129), 3:(134) Ondarru, 3Sg Abs monotransitive, 5:(109),
Ondarru, 3:(129), 3:(134) 5:(134b), 5:(139)
418 Index of Basque Auxiliaries
s-endu-e-n (cont.) 0-eb-an

/
Zamudio, ditransitive, 4:(34), 6:(26) Lekeito, 2:(131), 3:(211)
Zamudio, monotransitive 0-ub-an
/ P , 3:(225)
s-endu-e-n-aE , 5:(130) 0-ab-an

/ P , 3:(226)
s-endu-n Ondarru, 3Sg Abs

Zamudio, monotransitive, 2:(136), 3:(25) b-anP , 3:(222223)
Ondarru, 1Pl Abs monotransitive, 6:(16) 0-eb-e-n
/
Ondarru, 3Sg Abs monotransitive, 5:(236) Lekeitio, 3:(126)
Ondarru, 3Sg Abs ditransitive, 6:(22), Ondarru, 3Sg Abs, 3:(126)
6:(25) 0-eu-en,
/ 5:(125126)
s-endu-s-en u-enP , 3:(217), 3:(219)
Monotransitive, 3:(214) 0-eu-re-n,
/ 3:(126), 5:(127128),
s-i-e-n, 3:(182183) 5:(187a)
s-ia-n, 3:(115116) 0-eu-tza-n,
/ 3:(111112), 5:(132b),
s-iddu-0-s-en,
/ 3:(192) 5:(140b)
s-ii-an, 3:(115116), 3:(132) 0-eu-tza-s-an,
/ 2:(135)
s-ii-e-n, 3:(182183) 0-o-sku-
/ 0-n,
/ 3:(212)
s-intz-ie-n, 3:(42), 5:(70a), 5:(129) 0-o-sku-
/ 0-s-en
/
s-ire-n, 3:(200) 3Pl Erg, 4:(55)
y-a-ko-s-an, 3:(123124) 0-o-tze-n,
/ 3:(111112), 5:(132a), 5:(140a)
y-a-tzu-e-n 0-o-tz-o-n
/ O , 5:(133)
Transitive, 6:(20) tze-nP , 3:(218)

Karlos Arregi, Andrew Nevins Auth. Morphotactics Basque Auxiliaries and The Structure of Spellout

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Karlos Arregi, Andrew Nevins Auth. Morphotactics Basque Auxiliaries and The Structure of Spellout

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Morphotactics

Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

Marcel den Dikken, City University of New York

Guglielmo Cinque, University of Venice

For further volumes:

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012931561

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to

This book is about the tactics employed in order to achieve morphological

Chicago and London Karlos Arregi

2.3.2 Absolutive Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

4.4 Syntagmatic Markedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

5.7 Linearization and Hierarchical Relations . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

A Indicative Auxiliary Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

B Dialect Classification.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

Index of Languages and Basque Dialects .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399

Name Index .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401

Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405

The following is a list of grapheme-sound correspondences used in Basque

What has traditionally been called morphology is not

1.1 Major Claims of This Book

Morphology is often seen by itself: even some of the proponents of approaches to

K. Arregi and A. Nevins, Morphotactics, Studies in Natural Language 1

1.2 Distributed Morphology and the Division of Labor

1.2.1 An Overview of the Serial and Modular Components

Fig. 1.1 The serial and

Distributed Morphology adopts the basic Y-Model of grammar, in which syntactic

Linearization constitutes a definitive anchor point in the postsyntactic derivation,

1.2.2 An Overview of DM Elements and Operations

Linearization The syntactic computation has the function of enacting Merge,

1.3 The Basque Language

In this section, we provide some necessary background on the Basque language.

1.3.1 Geographic and Demographic Background

Government of the Basque Autonomous Community, there were 665,750 speakers

Fig. 1.3 Basque dialects

Table 1.1 Dialectal

Table 1.2 Number of

7 See http://www1.euskadi.net/euskara_adierazleak/indice.apl. This source does not distinguish

1.3.2 Orthography and Other Conventions in Representing

1.3.3 Sources of Data

8 See Sect. 1.4.3 for a brief explanation of glosses in auxiliary forms.

1.4 Brief Overview of Basque Syntax and Morphology

1.4.1 Argument Structure and Case

Although it can be classified as a free word order or discourse-configurational

b. Su-k ni-0/ ikus-i n -a -su.

We discuss immediately below how these arguments acquire case.13

(15) a. [ Jon-ek plater-ak garbi-tzi ] nai d -o -t.

(2003a:737752, 2003b:656710) and Oyharabal (2003a:790795) for detailed descriptions of

Certain psych-predicates provide examples of indirect objects in intransitive

b. [ e-txi ] nai d -o -t.

1.4.2 The Syntax and Morphology of DPs

Table 1.3 Nonlocative cases of etxe house in Lekeitio

Table 1.4 Locative cases of etxe house in Lekeitio

the references cited at the beginning of this subsection.

depending on their semantic number.

1.4.3 The Syntax of Auxiliaries: T, C, and Agreement

adjacent in affirmative sentences. See Sect. 5.7.3 in Chap. 5.

Table 1.5 Analytic tenses in Basque

Fig. 1.4 Basic syntax of CP

Before we sketch our analysis of verbal morphology in Basque, we would like

1.4.4 The Syntax of Auxiliaries and Pronominal Clitics