Asymmetries regarding case assignment and auxiliary selection

As explained in the previous chapter, in (Standard) Basque, unaccusative predicates take auxiliary izan (BE) and absolutive subjects, whereas transitive and unergative predicates take auxiliary *edun/ukan (HAVE) and ergative subjects. For convenience, let us illustrate this once more illustrate this with the examples provided there.

124 As reported to me by some speakers, the behar>inf word order is also possible in other dialects of Basque; however, as far as I could determine, the behar>inf constructions attested in these other varieties do not exhibit exactly the same properties as the varieties I will focus on (the reader is referred to the remarks made in the footnotes for the details).

160 (9) (= X, Ch 3) Case assignment and auxiliary selection of unaccusative predicates

Jon- Ø etorri da Jon-A comeUNACC BE.3sA

‘Jon has come.’

(10) (= X, Ch 3) Case assignment and auxiliary selection of transitive and unergative predicates

Guraso-ek auto berria erosi dute.

Parents-E car new-A buyTR HAVE.Ø(3sA).3pE

‘The parents have bought a new car.’

The Case assignment and auxiliary selection pattern exhibited by the modal constructions involving behar ‘need’ and an infinitival complement is however somewhat intricate, as I will show next.

4.2.2.1. Auxiliary selection and Case assignment in inf>behar constructions

To begin with, the constructions where the infinitive precedes the necessity modal behar (inf>behar) can, but need not, exhibit transparency to the Case assignment and auxiliary selection properties of the embedded uninflected verb.

Thus, when the infinitival complement headed by -TU precedes behar (inf>behar) and the embedded infinitive verb is an unaccusative predicate, the auxiliary selected can be either izan (BE) or *edun (HAVE)^.. As illustrated in (10a-b), the case assigned to the subject in the former case is absolutive (Jon-Ø), whereas in the latter case, the subject bears ergative case (Jon-ek). This variability is in fact common to most varieties of Basque.¹²⁵

125It appears to be difficult to circumscribe the use of the two construction (the one where the case of the subject and auxiliary are determined by an unaccusative infinitive verb (to which Mounole refers to as the intransitive construction), on the one hand, and the one where the auxiliary is invariably HAVE despite the presence of an unaccusative infinitive (to which Mounole refers as the transitive construction), on the other) to one particular geographical area. In her study about the alignment variations in the diachrony of the Basque, Mounole (2010) affirms that the use of the intransitive construction was already systematic in the Low- Navarrese texts of the 19th century, and is also found in the same century in some Biscayan

161 (11) infUNACC+behar: variability in auxiliary selection (BE/HAVE) and case assigned to the subject (absolutive (A) / ergative (E)) etorri (‘come’) must necessarily occur with auxiliary izan (BE) and an absolutive case-marked subject (11). The auxiliary *edun/ukan (HAVE) and ergative subjects are absolutely ungrammatical in Basque in this context (cf. (8)-(9) above); therefore, the presence of the transitive auxiliary in this context must be attributed to the presence of behar.

(12) * (Ni-k) etorri dut

I-E comeUNACC AUX-TR(HAVE)-3sA

‘I have come.’

Following the assumption made in Chapter 3 that auxiliary switch¹²⁶ is the reflection of the functional status of the modal, the contrast exhibited by the inf>behar

tests (i.e. Zavala 1848); in turn,, it is at this moment that it starts to spread among Guipuscoan, Souletin and High Navarrese writers. She adds that the different cross-dialectal works draw different conclusions too: the General Basque Dictionary (Euskaltzaindia 1987-2005) states that the use of the intransitive construction is more frequent in Eastern and Central varieties (Low-Navarrese, Labourdin and Gipuscoan); by contrast, the cross-dialectal survey Erizkizunde Irukoitza ((Azkue 1921, Etxaide 1984) concludes that the intransitive construction brings together the Low-Navarrese, High-Navarrese and Biscayan varieties, whereas the Labourdin, Gipuscoan and Souletin varieties show a preference for the transitive.

126 As explained in Chapter 3, I will take the transparency of auxiliary selection exhibited by Basque constructions and the auxiliary switch phenomenon of Italian described by Rizzi (1978, 1982) and Cardinaletti & Shlonski (2004) (see Chapter 3) to be the same type of phenomenon. In the two cases the constructions exhibiting it are simple sentences with a functional verb (the modal) and a unique lexical verb (the uninflected verb); hence, auxiliary switch is seen as a consequence of the grammaticalization of the modal which has evolved from being an originally lexical predicate to become a functional head. In both Italian and Basque, auxiliary switch takes place not only with modals but also with other

162 configurations in (11a-b) with respect to auxiliary selection and Case assignment must be taken to indicate the different functional/lexical status of the necessity modal behar in each case: in (11a) this modal behaves as a functional head, being the uninflected verb the one acting as the main predicate for purposes of Case assignment and auxiliary selection¹²⁷; whereas in (11b) it behaves as a lexical verb, in that it is able to license ergative case and the presence of a transitive auxiliary.

4.2.2.2. Auxiliary selection and Case assignment in behar>inf constructions

Crucially, in contrast with inf>behar constructions, the behar>inf constructions attested in the relevant varieties invariably show the auxiliary HAVE, regardless of the

restructuring verbs, such as aspectual verbs. The next examples illustrate auxiliary switch with aspectual verbs in Italian (xl) and Basque (xli):

(xli) Auxiliary switch with Italian continuare ‘continue’ (Rizzi 1982: 19) a. La pioggia è aumentata.

‘The rain ‘is’ increased’

b. La pioggia è continuata/ha continuato ad aumentare.

the rain is continued.fem/has continued to increase

‘The rain has continued to increase.’

c. La pioggia ha danneggiato i vigneti.

‘The rain has damaged the vines’

d. The piaoggia ha continuato/è continuata a danneggiare i vigneti.

‘The rain has continued to damage the vines.’

Note that continuare basically takes avere ‘have’, but can optionally take essere ‘be’ in restructuring construction involving an embedded unaccusative verb.

(xlii) ‘Auxiliary switch’ with Basque ari+izan(progressive) (Mounole 2010) a. Zorionaren bizitasunak ithotzen ari nau (Laphitz 1867)

Happiness-gen liveliness kill-imperf ari HAVE.1sA.3sE

‘The liveliness of happiness is killing me.’

b. Ongarriak hedatzen ari zituzten sorho guzietan, beltz beltza, Fertilizer-pA spread_imperf ari HAVE.3pA field all-in black-black

dena khe, dena lanho, lasto mutzitu batzuz ihaurriak (Barbier 1926) all smoke all cloud straw mouldy some-with scattered

‘They were spreading fertilizer through all the fields, deep black, all smoke, all cloudy, scattered with some mouldy straws.’

127 Note that what I am assuming is that in the cases where the modal is functional, the auxiliary (and the case the subject is assigned) are determined by the infnitive verb, which is the main verb of the construction. This means that when the infinitive verb is not unaccusative, it is imposible to determine whether the presence of auxiliry HAVE is determined by the infinitive verb (transitive or unergative), and the modal is a functional head, or whether HAVE is determined by the lexical modal verb. In this dissertation, the examples I will use to illustrate the functional constructions will always involve an unaccusative verb, to avoid ambiguity.

163 presence of an unaccusative uninflected verb in the complement (12). In this context, the case exhibited by the subject of the construction is ergative (morphologically realized as the suffix –(e)k on the subject). ¹²⁸

(13) behar>infunaccusative: auxiliary *edun (HAVE) obligatory a. Ume-ek behar dute (*dira) ikastola-ra joan.

children-pE need HAVE.3pE (*BE.3spA ) school -to goUNACC

‘The children need to/must go to school.’

b. Jonek behar du (*da) parke-ra joan.

Jon-E need HAVE.3pE (*BE.3spA ) park-to goUNACC

‘Jon needs to/must go to the park.’

Hence, in the construction in (13) the modal behar acts as the main lexical predicate for purposes of auxiliary selection and case assignment, bringing the presence of auxiliary

HAVE instead of BE.

Let us sum up the behaviour of inf>behar and behar>inf constructions in the dialects under examination:

(i) When the infinitival complement precedes behar (inf>behar), the construction can, but need not, surface with auxiliary BE licensed by the presence of an

128 The inf>behar constructions attested in Western and other Central varieties is in fact the same as the one exhibited by the behar>inf constructions of the varieties under examination: the auxiliary selected is HAVE and the case assigned to the subject is ergative. However, in Eastern varieties, behar + inf constructions may also occur with the auxiliary izan (BE) licensed by an unaccusative embedded infinitival verb; that is to say, in Eastern varieties behar>inf and inf>behar constructions behave on a par with respect to the case and auxiliary selection pattern they can license. Consider the following examples:

(xliii) Zergatik beraz Eskribek erraiten dute ezen Elias behar dela lehen ethorri?

Why then scribes-the.3pE say-imperf HAVE.3pE that Elias need BE.3sA before come ‘Why then do the scribes say that Elias is to come earlier?’

(Leizarraga 1571)

(xliv) Agertzen diren behar berriei behar gira plantatu.

show-up BE.3pA-rel need new.pD need BE.1pA stand-up ‘We need to stand up for the new needs that show up.’

(Contemporary Reference Prose; Sarasola et al 2011).

164 unaccusative verb in the complement; when this occurs, the subject shows up with absolutive case.

(ii) When the infinitival complement follows behar (behar>inf), auxiliary HAVEis required, and the subject necessarily surfaces with ergative case.

In consistence with the assumption that the presence/absence of the auxiliary switch phenomenon reflects the functional vs. lexical nature of the modal, it can be argued that what these case and auxiliary selection asymmetries reflect is the dual nature of behar as a functional and a lexical modal: in the inf>behar word order, it acts either as a functional head or as a lexical predicate; in behar>inf word, it always behaves as a lexical predicate.