Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Variation
Vol. 19:2 (2019) ► pp.352–385

Basque question particles

Implications for a syntax of discourse particles

| University of Konstanz, | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona,
| University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU,
In this paper, we focus on the syntax of question particles in Basque and provide an account that draws new parallels between the syntactic behavior of discourse particles in Basque and some recent findings that have been reported for the German language, perhaps the most studied language of all when it comes to discourse particles. In particular, after having argued for a syntactic perspective on discourse particles for German, we deal with Basque particles in both wh-questions and polar questions. For wh-questions, we provide evidence for the claim that the particle ote occupies an IP/TP-internal particle position and, when attaching to a wh-element, can serve to form emphatic questions of the type that have also been observed in German. In the context of polar questions, we demonstrate that there are two distinct positions for discourse particles in central and eastern dialects of Basque: one inside the IP/TP-domain and one in the left periphery of the clause. Again, we indicate relevant cross-linguistic parallels, thereby dealing with Basque discourse particles from the perspective of a cross-linguistic syntax of particle elements.
Keywords: Basque, discourse particles, German, questions, syntax
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discourse particles from a syntactic perspective
    • 2.1Introducing discourse particles
    • 2.2Discourse particles are syntactically distinct from their close relatives
    • 2.3The connection to illocutionary force
  • 3.Basque discourse particles in questions
    • 3.1Some basics on Basque syntax
    • 3.2Basque discourse particles in questions
      • 3.2.1Basque particles in wh-questions and emphatization
      • 3.2.2Basque particles in polar questions and two distinct particle positions
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.18002.tro
References (99)
References
Abraham, W. 1991. Discourse particles in German: How does their illocutive force come about? In W. Abraham (ed.), Discourse Particles: Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German, 203–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Discourse marker = discourse particle = thetical = modal particle? A futile comparison. In J. Bayer & V. Struckmeier (eds.), Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics, 241–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Alberdi, X. 1994. Euskararen tratamenduak: erabilera. UPV-EHU.Google Scholar
Albizu, P. 1991. Sobre la existencia del Movimiento Largo de Núcleos en Euskera. Manuscript, Madrid: Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset.Google Scholar
Alcázar, A. 2017. A syntactic analysis of rhetorical questions. In A. Kaplan, A. Kaplan, M. K. McCarvel & E. J. Rubin (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 32–41. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Antonov, A. 2015. Verbal allocutivity in a crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 191, 55–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arregi, K. & A. Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Artiagoitia, X. & A. Elordieta. 2016. On the semantic function and selection of Basque finite complementizers. In K. Boye & P. Kehayov (eds.), Complementizer Semantics in European Languages, 379–412. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azkue, R. M. 1923. Morfología vasca. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia.Google Scholar
Bayer, J., J. Häussler & M. Bader. 2016. A new diagnostic for cyclic wh-movement: Discourse particles in German questions. Linguistic Inquiry 471, 591–629. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, J. & H.-G. Obenauer. 2011. Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. The Linguistic Review 281, 449–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, J. & A. Trotzke. 2015. The derivation and interpretation of left peripheral discourse particles. In J. Bayer, R. Hinterhölzl & A. Trotzke (eds.), Discourse-oriented Syntax, 13–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 2011. German and Italian modal particles and clause structure. The Linguistic Review 281, 493–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Italian verb-based discourse particles in a comparative perspective. In J. Bayer, R. Hinterhölzl & A. Trotzke (eds.), Discourse-oriented Syntax, 71–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & M. Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In H. van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S. 1997. On the Typology of Wh-Questions. New York/London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1980. Rules and Representations. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coniglio, M. 2011. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln: Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coniglio, M. & I. Zegrean. 2012. Splitting up force: Evidence from discourse particles. In L. Aelbrecht, L. Haegeman & R. Nye (eds.), Main Clause Phenomena, 229–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craenenbroeck, J. van. 2005. Adverbial modification under sluicing. In K. Choi & C. Yim (eds.), Ellipsis in Minimalism: Proceedings of the Seventh Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, 77–102. Seoul: Hankook.Google Scholar
Degen, J., A. Trotzke, G. Scontras, E. Wittenberg & N. D. Goodman. 2019. Definitely, maybe: A new experimental paradigm for investigating the pragmatics of evidential devices across languages. Journal of Pragmatics 1401, 33–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Del Gobbo, F., N. Munaro & C. Poletto. 2015. On sentential particles: A cross-linguistic study. In S. Hancil, A. Haselow & M. Post (eds.), Final Particles, 359–386. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dörre, L. & A. Trotzke. 2019. The processing of secondary meaning: An experimental comparison of focus and modal particles in wh-questions. In D. Gutzmann & K. Turgay (eds.), Secondary Content: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Side Issues, 144–168. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duhalde, M. in press. Frontières politiques et isoglosses: caractéristiques phonologiques du parler basque du Labourd côtier. Scriptum.
Egg, M. & M. Zimmermann. 2012. “Stressed out!” Accented discourse particles. The case of doch . Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 161, 225–238.Google Scholar
Elordieta, A. 2001. Verb Movement and Constituent Permutation in Basque. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Elordieta, A. & W. Haddican. 2016. Strategies of verb and verb phrase focus across Basque dialects. In B. Fernandez & J. Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), Microparameters in the Grammar of Basque, 221–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elordieta, G. 1997. Morphosyntactic Feature Chains and Phonological Domains. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1970. Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Etxepare, R. 1998. A case for two types of focus in Basque. In E. Benedicto, M. Romero & S. Tomioka (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Focus, 65–81. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Etxepare, R. & B. Fernandez. 2013. Variation in Datives: A Micro-comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Euskaltzaindia [The Royal Academy of the Basque Language]. 1987. Euskal gramatika: lehen urratsak II. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia.Google Scholar
Fernandez, B. & M. Rezac. 2013. Dative displacement in Basque. In B. Fernandez & R. Etxepare (eds.), Variation in Datives: A Micro-comparative Perspective, 256–282. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2016. Differential object marking in Basque varieties. In B. Fernandez & J. Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), Microparameters in the Grammar of Basque, 93–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garmendia, J. 2014. Ote: hiztunaren ziurtasunik eza. Gogoa 121, 7–26.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. & A. Mari. 2018. The semantic roots of positive polarity: Epistemic modal verbs and adverbs in English, Greek and Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy 411, 623–664. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, P. 2014. German “doch”: an element that triggers a contrast presupposition. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 461, 163–178.Google Scholar
2016a. Discourse particles. To appear in L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullmann & T. E. Zimmermann (eds.): The Companion to Semantics (SemCom). Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
2016b. Information structure and discourse particles. In C. Fery & S. Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 336–358. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, D. 2015. Use-Conditional Meaning: Studies in Multidimensional Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddican, W. 2001. Basque functional heads. Manuscript NYU; June 18, 2001. Available online: <[URL]>
2008. Euskararen espez-buru-osagarri hurrenkeraren aldeko argudio batzuk. In I. Arteatx, X. Artiagoitia & A. Elordieta (eds.), Antisimetriaren Hipotesia vs Buru-parametroa: euskararen oinarrizko hurrenkera ezbaian, 87–124. Bilbao: UPV-EHU.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2002. Anchoring to speaker, adverbial clauses, and the structure of CP. Georgetown University Working Papers in Linguistics 171, 109–141.Google Scholar
2014. West Flemish verb-based discourse markers and the articulation of the speech act layer. Studia Linguistica 681, 116–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, V. 2002. Complementizer Phrases (CP) in Romanian. Rivista di Linguistica 141, 223–248.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. & S. Thompson. 1973. On the applicability of Root Transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 41, 465–97.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. & J. Nunes. 2014. Minimalism and control. A. Carnie, Y. Sato & D. Siddiqi (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, 239–263. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I. & J. Ortiz de Urbina. 2003. A Grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1999. Beyond Ouch and Oops. How descriptive and expressive meanings interact. Paper presented at the Cornell Conference on Context Dependency, Cornell University.
Kuong, I.-K. J. 2008. Yes/no question particles revisited: The grammatical functions of mo4, me1, and maa3 . Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-20), 715–733.Google Scholar
Kuwabara, K. 2013. Peripheral effects in Japanese questions and the fine structure of CP. Lingua 1261, 92–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lafitte, P. 1944. Grammaire Basque (Navarro Labourdin littéraire). Bayonne: Le Livre.Google Scholar
Laka, I. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1991. Sentence negation in Basque. Anuario Del Seminario De Filología Vasca/Julio de Urquijo, 899–926.Google Scholar
1996. A brief grammar of Euskara: The Basque language. Vitoria-Gasteiz: UPV/EHU [[URL]]
Li, B. 2006. Chinese Final Particles and the Syntax of the Periphery. Utrecht: LOT Dissertations.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, H. 2007. On clause types and sentential force. Linguistische Berichte 2091, 63–86.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. 2012. Agreements that occur mainly in the main clause. In L. Aelbrecht, L. Haegeman & R. Nye (eds.), Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons, 79–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monforte, S. 2018. Question particles in Basque. Isogloss. A Journal on Variation of Romance and Iberian Languages 41, 29–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munaro, N. & C. Poletto. 2002. Ways of clausal typing. Rivista di grammatica generativa 271, 87–105.Google Scholar
. 2008. Sentential particles and clausal typing in Venetan dialects. In B. Shaer, P. Cook, W. Frey & C. Maienborn (eds.), Dislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Perspectives, 173–199. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Murray, S. 2017. The Semantics of Evidentials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nasu, N. 2012. Topic particle stranding and the structure of CP. In L. Aelbrecht, L. Haegeman & R. Nye (eds.), Main Clause Phenomena, 205–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, I. 2016. Analyses of the semantics of mood. In J. Nuyts & J. van der Auwera (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, 68–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 2012. Sideward movement: Triggers, timing, and outputs. In M. Uribe-Etxebarria & V. Valmala (eds.), Ways of Structure Building, 114–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Obenauer, H.-G. 2006. Special interrogatives: Left periphery, wh-doubling, and (apparently) optional elements. In J. Doetjes & P. González (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2004, 247–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortiz de, Urbina J. 1987. Operator movement and verb second phenomena in Basque. ASJU 211, 321–355.Google Scholar
1989. Dislocaciones verbales en estructuras de polaridad. ASJU 231, 393–410.Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, J. 1992. Inversión y movimiento verbal en euskara. Revista Española De Lingüística 221, 107–32.Google Scholar
Ortiz de, Urbina J. 1993. Checking domains in Basque and Breton. ASJU 271, 751–775.Google Scholar
1994. Verb-initial patterns in Basque and Breton. Lingua 941, 125–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. Force phrases, focus phrases and left heads in Basque. In J. Franco & A. Landa (eds.), Grammatical Analyses in Basque and Romance Linguistics, 179–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Oyharçabal, B. 1993. Verb agreement with nonarguments: On allocutive agreement. In J. I. Hualde & J. Ortiz de Urbina (eds.) Generative Studies in Basque Linguistics, 89–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, W. & V. J. Pan. 2017. What you see is what you get: Chinese sentence-final particles as head-final complementizers. In J. Bayer & V. Struckmeier (eds.), Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics, 49–77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & E. Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian & W. K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poletto, C. & R. Zanuttini. 2010. Sentential particles and remnant movement. In P. Benincà & N. Munaro (eds.) Mapping the Left Periphery, 201–227. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, C. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 331, 165–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Rijk, R. 1969. Is Basque an S.O.V. language? FLV 31, 319–351.Google Scholar
2008. Standard Basque: A Progressive Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Syntactic cartography and the syntacticisation of scope-discourse semantics. In A. Reboul (ed.), Mind, Values, and Metaphysics, 517–533. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
2017. Locality and the functional sequence in the left periphery. In E. O. Aboh, E. Haeberli, G. Puskás, M. Schönenberger (eds.), Elements of Comparative Syntax: Theory and Description, 319–348. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rojas-Esponda, T. 2014. A discourse model for überhaupt . Semantics & Pragmatics 71, 1–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauerland, U. & K. Yatsushiro. 2017. Remind-me presuppositions and speech-act decomposition: Evidence from particles in questions. Linguistic Inquiry 481, 651–677. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurmair, M. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trotzke, A. 2017. The Grammar of Emphasis: From Information Structure to the Expressive Dimension. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trotzke, A. & G. Turco. 2015. The grammatical reflexes of emphasis: Evidence from German wh-questions. Lingua 1681, 37–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trotzke, A. & J.-W. Zwart. 2014. The complexity of narrow syntax: Minimalism, representational economy, and simplest Merge. In F. J. Newmeyer & L. B. Preston (eds.), Measuring Grammatical Complexity, 128–147. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, H. 2006. On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in German. Theoretical Linguistics 321, 257–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villasante, L. 1980. Sintaxis de la oración simple. Oñati: Editorial Franciscana.Google Scholar
Waltereit, R. 2001. Modal particles and their functional equivalents: A speech-act-theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 331, 1391–1417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, M. 2008. Discourse particles in the left periphery. In B. Shaer et al. (eds.), Dislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Perspectives, 200–231. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2011. Discourse particles. In P. Portner, C. Maienborn & K. von Heusinger (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, 2011–2038. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zuazo, K. 2014. Euskalkiak. Donostia: Elkar.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Haselow, Alexander & Sylvie Hancil
2021. Grammar, discourse, and the grammar-discourse interface. In Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series, 219], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
López, Laura González & Andreas Trotzke
2021. ¡Mira!The grammar-attention interface in the Spanish left periphery. The Linguistic Review 38:1 ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo
Monforte, Sergio
2020. Chapter 11. Modal particles in Basque. In Information-Structural Perspectives on Discourse Particles [Studies in Language Companion Series, 213], ► pp. 278 ff. DOI logo
Monforte, Sergio
2020. Syntactic analyses of discourse particles through the microvariation of Basque <italic>ote</italic>. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5:1 DOI logo
Beltrama, Andrea & Andreas Trotzke
2019. Conveying emphasis for intensity: Lexical and syntactic strategies. Language and Linguistics Compass 13:7 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.