Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 735–764

On egin: do-support and VP focus in Central and Western Basque

Original Paper

Abstract

This paper develops an account of do-support in VP focus constructions in Central and Western Basque (CWB) dialects. In particular, this paper argues that CWB dialects, along with Korean, form a class of do-support languages whose dummy verb insertion mechanism differs slightly from that of English and Monnese. In all four of these languages, the dummy verb occupies a position that is, in marked environments, inaccessible to the verb. However, in Korean and CWB, unlike in English and Monnese, the verb’s inability to raise to value this feature is not due to its inflectional poverty, but rather because it must bear a nominalizing infinitival affix for independent reasons; this nominal infinitive may not bear aspectual morphology, and a dummy verb is merged to do so instead.

Moreover, Basque do-support is not a last-resort phenomenon as in Chomsky’s classic analysis of English do-support (Chomsky 1957). That is, the unavailability of do-support in non-verb focalization constructions is not due to competition with a more economical alternative, but rather is independently excluded. This approach avoids a violation of the Inclusiveness Condition inherent in economy-based approaches to do-support that generate the dummy verb in the computational component.

Keywords

Do-support Basque Economy VP-focus Verb movement Lexical array 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alcázar, A. (2002). Aspectual interpretation in Basque, ms. University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, M. (1995). Case, Periphrastic do and the Loss of Verb Movement in English, Ph.D. dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  3. Arregi, K. (2003). Clausal Pied piping. Natural Language Semantics, 11, 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arregi, K. (2004). The have/be alternation in Basque, ms. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  5. Artiagoitia, X. (1995). Verbal Projections in Basque and Minimal Structure, Supplements of Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” XXXVI, Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia, Donostia.Google Scholar
  6. Benincà, P., & Poletto, C. (2004). A case of do-support in romance. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 51–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bobaljik, J. (1993). On ergativity and ergative unergatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 19, 45–88.Google Scholar
  8. Bresnan, J. (2000). Optimal syntax. In J. Dekkers, F. van der Leeuw & J. van de Weijer (Eds.), Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition (pp. 334–385). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cardinaletti, A., & Shlonsky, U. (2004). Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 519–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N. (1994). Bare phrase structure. Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5, MITWPL, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries; the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belleti (Ed.), Structures and beyond (pp.104–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cinque, G. (2000). Restructuring and functional structure, ms. University of Venice.Google Scholar
  18. Cinque, G. (2004). Restructuring and functional structure. In Belletti A. (Ed.), Structures and beyond (pp. 132–191). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Collins, C. (1997). Local economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Elordieta, G. (1997). Morphosyntactic Feature Chains and Phonological Domains, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Elordieta, A. (2001). Verb Movement and Constituent Permutation in Basque, LOT Dissertation Series, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  22. Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2001). Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 555–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Etxepare, R. (2002). Bare indefinites and distibutivity in Basque. In X. Artiagoitia, P. Goenaga & J. A. Lakarra (Eds.), Erramu boneta: Festschrift for Rudolf P.G. de Rijk (pp. 231–246). Bilbao: University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
  24. Etxepare, R., & Ortiz de Urbina, J. (2003). Focalization. In J. I. Hualde & J. Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.), A grammar of Basque (pp. 460–516). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Fernández, B. (1997). Egiturazko kasuaren erkaketa euskaraz, Ph.D. dissertation. Gasteiz: University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
  26. Grimshaw, J. (1997). Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 373–422.Google Scholar
  27. Hagstrom, P. (1995). Negation, focus and do-support in Korean, ms. MIT.Google Scholar
  28. Hagstrom, P. (1996). Do-support in Korean: Evidence for an interpretive morphology. In H.-D. Ahn et al. (Eds.), Morphosyntax in generative grammar (pp. 169–180). Hankuk, Seoul.Google Scholar
  29. Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20 (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., & Grohmann, K. K. (2005). Understanding minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kayne, R. (1991) Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 647–686.Google Scholar
  32. Kayne, R. (2000). Parameters and universals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Laka, I. (1990). Negation in syntax. On the nature of functional categories and projections, Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  34. Laka, I. (1993). The structure of inflection. In J. I. Hualde & J. Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.), Generative studies in Basque linguistics (pp. 21–70). Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  35. Levin, B. (1983). On the nature of ergativity. Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  36. Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Manfredi, V. (1993). Verb focus in the typology of Kwa/Kru and Haitian. In F. Byrne & D. Winford (Eds.), Focus and grammatical relations in Creole languages (pp. 3–51). Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  38. Ortiz de Urbina, J. (1989). Parameters in the grammar of Basque. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  39. Ortiz de Urbina, J. (1993). Feature percolation and clausal pied-Piping. In J. I. Hualde & J. Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.), A grammar of Basque (pp.189–219). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  40. Ortiz de Urbina, J. (2002). Focus of correction and remnant movement in Basque. In X. Artiagoitia, P. Goenaga & J. A. Lakarra (Eds.), Erramu boneta: Festschrift for Rudolf P.G. de Rijk (pp. 512–524). Bilbao: University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
  41. Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
  42. Rebuschi, G. (1983). A note on focalization in Basque. Journal of Basque Studies, 4(2), 29–42.Google Scholar
  43. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  44. Rodríguez, S., & García Murga, F. (2001). “IZEN + EGIN” Predikatuak Euskaraz. Proceedings of the XV Euskaltzaindia International Congress (pp. 417–435). Baiona, Basque Country.Google Scholar
  45. San Martin, I. (1999). Control in Basque, MA thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  46. San Martin, I., & Uriagereka, J. (2002). Infinitival complementation in Basque. In X. Artiagoitia, P. Goenaga & J. A. Lakarra (Eds.), Erramu boneta: festschrift for Rudolph P. G. de Rijk. Supplements of Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo,” XLIV, pp. 597–609. Bilbao: University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
  47. Schütze, C. (2004). Synchronic and diachronic microvariation in English do’. Lingua, 114, 495–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stewart, O. T. (2001). The serial verb construction parameter. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  49. Uriagereka, J. (1999). Minimal restrictions on Basque movements. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 403–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (2003). Euskararen eta Hizkuntza erromanikoen foko egituren arteko zenbait paralelotasunez. In Proceedings of the XV Euskaltzaindia International Congress (pp. 417–435). Baiona: Basque Country.Google Scholar
  51. Vikner, S. (2001). V-to-I Movement and do-insertion in optimality theory. In G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw & S. Vikner (Eds.), Optimality-theoretic syntax (pp. 427–464). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Wurmbrand, S. (2001). Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  53. Zabala, I., & Odriozola, J. C. (1996). ‘On The Relation between DP and TP: The Structure of Basque Infinitivals’, Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 5, 231–281.Google Scholar
  54. Zuazo, K. (1998). Euskalkiak gaur. Fontes Linguae Vasconum, 30, 191–233.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Language and Linguistic ScienceUniversity of YorkHeslington, YorkUK

Personalised recommendations