%% LyX 2.1.1 created this file.  For more info, see http://www.lyx.org/.
%% Do not edit unless you really know what you are doing.
\documentclass[12pt,basque,british]{article}
\usepackage{fontspec}
\setmainfont[Ligatures=TeX]{Times New Roman}
\usepackage[a4paper]{geometry}
\geometry{verbose,tmargin=2.5cm,bmargin=2.5cm,lmargin=2.5cm,rmargin=2.5cm}
\usepackage{covington}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{fixltx2e}
\usepackage{setspace}
\doublespacing

\makeatletter
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Textclass specific LaTeX commands.
\usepackage{enumitem}		% customizable list environments
\newlength{\lyxlabelwidth}      % auxiliary length 
\newenvironment{subexample}{%
\begin{example}\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=1.7em]
\renewcommand\theenumi{\alph{enumi}}
\renewcommand\labelenumi{(\theenumi)}
\renewcommand\p@enumi{\theequation\,}}%
{\end{enumerate}\end{example}}

\@ifundefined{date}{}{\date{}}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% User specified LaTeX commands.
\usepackage{forest}
\usepackage{soul}
\usepackage{gb4e}
\noautomath
\pretolerance=2000
\tolerance=3000
\renewenvironment{example}{%
\setlength\leftmargini{3.05em}
\begin{examples}%
\settowidth{\labelwidth}{(0.00)}%
\item}
{\end{examples}}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\setlength{\parindent}{0.75cm}
\usepackage{indentfirst}
\makeatletter
\renewcommand\@biblabel[1]{}
\let\old@biblabel\@biblabel
\def\@biblabel#1{\old@biblabel{#1}\kern\bibindent}
\let\old@bibitem\bibitem
\def\bibitem#1{\old@bibitem{#1}\leavevmode\kern-\bibindent}
\makeatother
\usepackage{fontspec}

\makeatother

\usepackage{babel}
\makeatletter
\addto\extrasbasque{\bbl@deactivate{~}}

\makeatother
% redefine equation counter (do not prepend chapter number) 
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{equation}}
\setenumerate[0]{leftmargin=0pt,itemindent=15pt,labelwidth=0pt}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\alph{enumi}.}
\renewcommand{\labelitemi}{$\bullet$}
\deffootnote[1.8em]{0pt}{1.6em}{\textsuperscript{\thefootnotemark}}
\setitemize[0]{leftmargin=0pt,itemindent=15pt,labelwidth=0pt}
\deffootnote[1.8em]{0pt}{1.6em}{\textsuperscript{\thefootnotemark}}
\setcounter{section}{-1}

\title{Question particles in Basque\footnote{I thank the audiences of the IKER-UPV/EHU research seminar (May 2016) held at the research center IKER-UMR 5478, as well as of the 13th Workshop on Syntax, Semantics and Phonology, held at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona in June 2016, for their comments. I am also thankful to Xabier Artiagoitia and two anonymous reviewers, who helped me to greatly improve it. The responsibility for any errors is entirely mine.}
}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
This article proposes separate analyses for the question particles
\emph{-a} and \emph{al} in Basque, which occur only in polarity questions,
within the framework of Generative Grammar. I will propose that the
former one, used in the eastern dialects, is the head of FiniteP and
that the latter one, used in the central dialects, occupies the head
of Particle Phrase located between TP and the CP field. I provide
the following evidence in support of this dual analysis: 1) \emph{-a}
can be used with \emph{ote} but no other particle can appear at the
same time with \emph{al}; 2) \emph{al} is compatible with allocutivity
but \emph{-a} is not; 4) and, finally, \emph{al} can be used in embedded
clauses, whereas \emph{-a} cannot. The fact that \emph{-a} is not
allowed to occur in indirect questions and that it is incompatible
with the allocutive verbal paradigm shows that it is in complementary
distribution with the head of CP and, therefore, that \emph{-a} occupies
such a head; on the other hand, the impossibility of \emph{al} to
appear with other particles suggest that they must occur in the same
position and, since it can appear in embedded questions and with allocutive
forms, it does not occupy the head of the CP, but the head of a phrase
below.

KEY WORDS: syntax, question particles, morphology, microvariation
\end{abstract}

\section{Introduction}



Recent research (Li 2006, Paul and Pan 2017, Scherf 2017) has differenciated
two positions for particles: Li (2006), specifically, distinguishes
an outer position and an inner position. This author provides evidence
for this distinction from Cantonese, Mandarin and Wenzhou, since in
these languages more than one particle can occur in the same sentence%
\footnote{The abbreviations used in glosses are as follows: ABS = absolutive,
ACC = accusative, ALL = allative, ALC = allocutive, ART = article,
AUX = auxiliary, CL = clitic, COP = copula, DAT = dative, ERG = ergative,
F = femenine, FO = formal, FUT = future, GEN = genitive, IPFV = imperfect
tense, IN = inessive, INS = instrumental, M = masculine, P = particle,
PTCP = participle, PTV = partitive, PST = past tense, Q = question,
SG = singular, SOZ = sociative.%
}:
\begin{example}
\gll Lĭ Miănníng hái méi gěi nĭ jièshào wŏ shì shéi ne ba/*ba ne? \\
 Li Mianning still NEG to 2S introduce 1S be who P P \\
\trans ‘Li Mianning hasn’t told you yet who I am, right?’
\end{example}
Similarly, Scherf (2017) claims that in Swedish there are two kind
of modal particles ocurring in differentiated positions:
\begin{example}
\gll Nog har väl Peter köpt boken? \\
 P has P Peter bought book.ART \\
\trans ‘Peter definitely has bought the book, hasn't he?’
\end{example}
In the view of these distinctions, the proposals to locate question
particles across languages can be reduced to two: 

- Those which claim that interrogative particles occupy the head of
CP or some other position in the Left Periphery ( for Italian Rizzi
2001, for Mandarin Li 2006, Paul and Pan 2017, for Catalan Prieto
and Rigau 2007, for Cantonese Kuong 2008, typologically Bailey 2013,
for Japanese Kuwabara 2013), i.e., that they occupy an outer position.

- Those which suggest an intern position (Kuong 2008), in the field
of TP/vP (for Sinhala Hagstrom 1998, for Vietnamese Duffield 2004,
for German Bayer and Obenauer 2011, Egg and Mursell 2017, for Swedish
Scherf 2017). 

As I hope to show in this article, Basque data confirm that there
are typologically two positions for question particles.

In what follows, I shall be analysing the question particles in as
much detail as space permits focusing on their syntactic characteristics
and putting aside the semantic contributions of these particles to
the sentence. First, I will give a brief explanation of some aspects
of the Basque grammar dealt with in this paper; second, I will analyse
the features which differentiate the two particles from each other;
afterwards, in section 3, the weaknesses of previous analyses will
be pointed out: one related to interpretation, the impossibility of
\emph{-a} occurring in embedded clauses and with allocutive forms
and \emph{-a}’s compatibility with \emph{ote}. Finally, section 4
will argue that, given the characteristics examined previously in
this paper, the particle \emph{-a} is the head of the Finite Phrase
and the particle \emph{al} is located in a separate Particle Phrase.
Section 5 summarizes the main conclusions of the article.


\section{Basics on particles in Basque}


\subsection{A brief introduction to question particles in Basque}

In Basque in order to create a polarity question, speakers from eastern
dialects may use the question particle \emph{-a} and speakers from
the central dialect may use the question particle \emph{al}%
\footnote{Nevertheless, polarity questions do not obligatorily require the presence
of these particles in order to be acceptable, since Verb-Auxiliary
fronting (Ortiz de Urbina \& Hualde 1989, 1993) and prosody mark a
proposition as a question (Zuazo 2014); in fact, the data collected
for this research confirms their optionality with some clarifications:
in central Basque, speakers resort to \emph{al} as the preferred and
prestigious way to ask polarity questions (cf. Hack 2014); in eastern
dialects, the use of \emph{-a} in yes/no questions is more a matter
of sociolinguistic or generational variation (younger speakers use
it less often than older speakers). Further research will result in
more accurate data.%
}%
\footnote{In this work and due to space limitations I will consider all the
so-called question particles as true, pure question particles, although
they are not obligatory in order to form acceptable polarity questions
in most languages, as Xiang (2012) states.%
}. These particles cannot occur together, since they belong in two
different dialectal areas which are not in contact%
\footnote{I am aware of a sole example where these particles occur together:\foreignlanguage{basque}{\setcounter{equation}{0}}

\renewcommand{\theequation}{\roman{equation}}
\begin{example}
\gll Harrigarria da! Peio al dea liburu au ekarri duena?  \\ 
unbelievable AUX Peio P AUX.P book this bring AUX.C.ART \\
\trans ‘Unbelievable! Is it Peio who has brought this book?’ (Norantz 2009)
\end{example}

\selectlanguage{basque}%
Nevertheless, this rare example or hapax may after all turn out not
to be relevant because of its isolated character and because the occurrence
of both particles can be explained considering that the speaker was
a native of the eastern dialects and studied in full immersion Basque
schools, so the particle \emph{-a} could be the particle adquired
at home and \emph{al} the one learned at the school.\selectlanguage{british}%
%
}: \foreignlanguage{basque}{\setcounter{equation}{2}}
\begin{examples}
\item \gll Nehor ikusi duzu-a? [eastern dialects] \\
anybody see AUX-P \\
\trans ‘Did you see anybody?’
\item \gll Inor    ikusi al dezu? [central dialect] \\
anybody see P AUX \\
\trans ‘Did you see anybody?’
\end{examples}


These particles appear neither in Wh-questions, nor in disjunctive
questions%
\footnote{Typologically we observe that there are particles restricted to polarity
questions, for instance, the particle \emph{que} in Catalan (Prieto
\& Rigau 2007) or \emph{-a} in Sardinian (Mensching 2015) and other
particles which can occur in yes/no questions, Wh-questions and disjunctive
questions such as \emph{ka} in Japanese (Kuwabara 2013).%
}:
\begin{examples}
\item \gll *Nor etorri al da? /*Nola hiz-a? \\
who come P AUX/ how AUX-P \\
\trans ‘Who came here?’/ ‘How are you?’ 
\item \gll *Mikel etorriko al da ala zu (etorriko [al] zara)? \\
Mike come.FUT P AUX or you come.FUT P AUX \\
\trans ‘Is Mike coming or are you coming here?’ (Goenaga 2009: 383) 
\item \gll *Mikel heldu dea ala zu (heldu zira[-a])? \\
Mike come AUX.P or you come AUX.P \\
\trans ‘Is Mike coming or are you coming here?’%
\footnote{In contrast to the particle \emph{al}, it is not clear whether \emph{-a}
can occur in disjunctive clauses, since eastern dialects speakers
do not always refuse such sentences.%
}
\end{examples}


Nevertheless, this restriction is not related to the nature of particles,
since the epistemic particle \emph{ote} can occur in Wh-questions
just as in polarity questions:
\begin{examples}
\item \gll Norat hartuko ote du? \\
Where.ALL take.FUT P AUX \\
\trans ‘Where is he taking it/him/her? (I’m wondering)’ (Etxamendi 2010[1989]: 29) %
\footnote{In order to carry out this research, I have used two kinds of sample:
one made up of data from literary works and dialectical research works;
the other one shows data gathered from interviews and surveys realised
in Gipuzkoa, Low Navarre (Baxe Nafarroa) and Soule (Zuberoa). Examples
used in this article are part of both corpora.%
}
\item \gll Aterako ote gera, […]?  \\
Leave.FUT P AUX  \\
\trans ‘Are we leaving? (I’m wondering)’ (Altzaga 1888)
\end{examples}


Below, I will shortly describe some basic grammatical issues of modal
particles in Basque.


\subsection{\label{sub:Modal-particles-in}Modal particles in Basque}

Traditionally, grammarians (de Rijk 1969, Euskaltzaindia%
\footnote{To save time, I will refer to the Royal Academy of the Basque Language
as Euskaltzaindia, its name in Basque.%
} 1987, Albizu 1991, Elordieta 1997) have grouped these particles,
\emph{al} and \emph{ote}, together with others which seem to have
a similar distribution; in the case of the particle\emph{ -a} few
grammars have mentioned it and, when it has been cited (Azkue 1923,
Laffite 1944), it has been labeled as a interrogative marker, separated
from modal particles. It is the normative grammar of the Royal Academy
of the Basque Language (Euskaltzaindia 1987: 486) who lists both of
them, interrogative markers and modal particles, together under the
term \textquotedbl{}elements attached to the inflected form\textquotedbl{}:
\emph{omen}/ \emph{ei, ote, bide ahal/al} and \emph{-a}. 

Furthermore, recent research (Haddican 2006, Monforte 2015) has led
to a new classification considering the semantics and contextual differences: 
\begin{subexample}
\item Evidential particles: \emph{omen}/ \emph{ei}
\item Epistemic particles: \emph{bide} and \emph{ote}
\item Question particles: \emph{al} and \emph{-a}
\end{subexample}


In what follows, I will briefly explain why these particles have been
previously grouped together.

Although written separately, they usually function as proclitics to
the finite verb. Evidence of this relationship is found in the following
contexts (Euskaltzaindia 1987, Ortiz de Urbina 1993, Hualde et al.
2003).

In negative contexts the inflected verb is fronted; if a particle
occurs, it moves along with the inflected form: 
\begin{examples}
\item \gll Gure herrira [ez al zara] inoiz etorriko [\sout{al zara}]?  \\
Our town.ALL not P AUX ever come.FUT   \\
\trans ‘Won’t you ever come to our town?’ (de Rijk 2008: 169)
\end{examples}


Also, in focus contexts the inflected verb is fronted in eastern dialects,
carrying the particle along with it:
\begin{examples}
\item \label{adibide1}\gll AITAK [omen du] aurdiki [\sout{omen du}]   \\
Father.ERG P AUX throw  \\
\trans ‘Apparently, it was father who threw it.’ (Hualde et al. 2003: 317)
\item \label{adibide2}\gll Jonek   [ote dia] erran [\sout{ote dia}]?  \\
Jon.ERG P AUX.P say \\
\trans ‘Was it John who said that? (I'm wondering)’ 
\end{examples}








Finally, particles can only occur in inflected sentences, never in
non-inflected contexts%
\footnote{Nevertheless, Etxepare (2010: 91) provides an example where \emph{omen}
can appear in non-inflected sentences, for instance: \foreignlanguage{basque}{\setcounter{equation}{0}}

\renewcommand{\theequation}{\roman{equation}}
\begin{example}
\gll Aldiz Euskal Herrian ere gazte batek OMEN gauza bera eginik, amanda eta presondegia ukan zituen \\ 
though Basque country.IN too young one.ERG P thing same do.PTCP fine and prison have AUX \\
\trans ‘However, a young guy reportedly doing the same thing in the Basque country ended in fine and prison.’ 
\end{example}

Leaving this work aside, nobody else reports the use of particles
outside finite sentences.%
}:\foreignlanguage{basque}{\renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{13}}
\begin{examples}
\item \gll Ez dakit nora (*ote) joan (*ote)  \\
not know.\textsubscript{1SG.ERG.3SG.ABS} where.ALL P go P  \\
\trans  ‘I don’t know where to go.’ (Euskaltzaindia 1987: 511)
\end{examples}


As regards the phonology, some morphonological changes occur between
particles and auxiliaries, such as the so-called Sandhi rule and vowel
change:
\begin{examples}
\item \gll Urduri altzaude [alzaude > altzaude]? \\
nervous P.be.\textsubscript{2SG.ABS} \\
\trans ‘Are you nervous?’ 
\item \gll Badea [daa > dea] portuges? \\
CL.be.\textsubscript{3SG.ABS}.P {} {} {} portuguese \\
\trans ‘Are there any Portuguese people here?’ 
\end{examples}


Therefore, based on the presented data, I propose that particles and
inflected verbs form a morphonological-word, in the terms stated in
Elordieta (1997).

Before starting the analysis of these question particles, I will give
a brief explanation of some aspects concerned with the syntax of Basque
Left Periphery in (\ref{sub:An-outline-of}). 


\subsection{\label{sub:An-outline-of}An outline of assumptions made in the CP
field in Basque}

Rizzi (1997) claims that two phrases can be differentiated in the
Complementizer Phrase, one related to the illocutionary force (Force
Phrase) and another one to the finiteness (Finite Phrase); along with
the two phrases above, Rizzi also proposes two other phrases connected
with the information structure, i.e. Topic Phrase and Focus Phrase.
Ortiz de Urbina (1999b), following Rizzi (1997), proposes for the
Basque language that polarity operators occur in the Force Phrase,
Wh-words and foci in the Focus Phrase and complementizers in the Finite
Phrase. He claims that, for instance, the Basque complementizer \emph{-(e)n},
a suffixal complementizer attached to the inflected form, is a head
expressing the finiteness morphology of the sentence, since complementizers
such as \emph{-(e)n }and\emph{ -(e)la}, are only found in tensed sentences. 

Although phrases in Basque are claimed to be head-final (de Rijk 1969),
head-movement to the left is attested in some contexts such as negation,
question formation and focalization. Since the target of these movements
is taken to be either CP (Ortiz de Urbina 1989), ΣP (Laka 1990), or
FocusP (Uriagereka 1995, Ortiz de Urbina 1999a), the said target phrase
has been considered sentence initial; however, Ortiz de Urbina (1999b)
proposes that the split CP should be further articulated as follows
(Ortiz de Urbina 1999b):
\begin{examples}
\item {[}(TopicP) {[}(Topic){]} {[}ForceP {[}Force{]} {[}(TopicP) {[}(Topic){]}
{[}FocusP {[}Focus{]} {[}FiniteP {[}...{]} {[}Finite{]} {]}{]}{]}{]}{]}
\item \gll Galdetu dute [\textsubscript{Top} liburua] [\textsubscript{Force} ea] [\textsubscript{Top} Jonek] [\textsubscript{Foc} nori] erregalatu dio[\textsubscript{Fin}n] \\
ask AUX {} book.ART {} Q {} Jon.ERG {} who.DAT give AUX.{}C \\
\trans ‘They asked who John gave the book to.’ (Ortiz de Urbina 1999a: 183)
\end{examples}
Therefore, not all phrases located in the \emph{Left Periphery} are
head-first: Ortiz de Urbina (1999b) claims that FiniteP is final and
phrases above it are sentence initial. The head final character of
FinP explains the canonical sentencial position of complementizers
at the end of the sentence:
\begin{examples}
\item \gll [\textsubscript{Force}Ø] Jonek Mikeli liburua erregalatu dio[\textsubscript{Fin}la] esan dute \\
{} Jon.ERG Mikel.DAT book.ART give AUX.C say AUX \\
\trans ‘They say that John gave the book to Michael.’ 
\end{examples}
On the other hand, as Rizzi (1997) states, the CP will be articulated
only if necessary; therefore, in this paper CP in main clauses will
not split into ForceP and FinP, unless FocusP or TopicP are activated
(see Kuwabara 2013 for a similar proposal for Japanese).
\begin{examples}
\item \gll [\textsubscript{CP} Joan da] Mikel etxera [\sout{joan da}] ? \\
{} go AUX Mikel home.ALL \\
\trans ‘Did Michael go home?’ 
\item \label{1}\gll [\textsubscript{Force}Ø] [\textsubscript{Foc} Mikel joan da] [\sout{Mikel}] etxera [\sout{joan da}] [\textsubscript{Fin}Ø] ? \\
{} {} Mikel go AUX home.ALL {} \\
\trans ‘Was it Michael who went home?’ 
\end{examples}
In (21) we can see that main and auxiliary verbs (\emph{joan da})
are fronted, adjacent to the focalised element (\emph{Mikel}); as
proposed by Ortiz de Urbina (1999a), in Basque the focalised element
trigers movement to {[}spec, FocP{]}; once the inflected form is lexicalized
by the lexical verb, the complex V\textsuperscript{0}-T\textsuperscript{0}/I\textsuperscript{0}
unit moves to Foc\textsuperscript{0}, in order to match features
between the operator of the focal element\emph{ }and the T\textsuperscript{0}/I\textsuperscript{0}.
Therefore, since there is movement to FocP, CP is split into the phrases
detailed in (17).


\section{Question particles in Basque: their syntactic characteristics}

Below, I will introduce some characteristics of \emph{-a} which make
it different from \emph{al} and the rest of the particles. As stated
before, I will not consider the semantic contribution of these particles;
therefore, all characteristics mentioned above are related to their
syntactic behaviour. However, I would like to indicate that these
particles, \emph{-a} and \emph{al}, do not seem to be clause-typing
ones, since they are not obligatory in order to form acceptable polarity
questions, as said in the footnote (1 and 2); hence, I consider them
as pragmatic markers. Notwithstanding, further research must be conducted
to clarify their character.


\subsection{Particle's sentencial position}

Previously, (\ref{sub:Modal-particles-in}), I have pointed out that
particles occur attached to the inflected form. As most grammars describe,
modal particles are preffixed to the inflected verb:
\begin{examples}
\item \gll Lurdes etxera joan bide da\\
Lurdes home.ADL go P AUX  \\
\trans ‘Lurdes seems to have gone home’ (Euskaltzaindia 1987: 502)
\end{examples}
Nevertheless, that does not hold true for both question particles.
Indeed, the particle \emph{-a}, unlike \emph{al} and the others, appears
suffixed to the auxiliary:
\begin{examples}
\item \gll Hemen bizi dea?\\
here live AUX.P  \\
\trans ‘Does s/he live here?’ (Euskaltzaindia 1987: 500)
\end{examples}
Therefore, the particle \emph{-a} shares sentencial position with
complementizers such as \emph{-(e)la(ko) }or\emph{ -(e)n}, since they
also occur suffixed to the inflected form:
\begin{examples}
\item \gll Galdetu du (ea) egitea merezi du-en\\
asked AUX ea doing deserve AUX-C   \\
\trans ‘He has asked whether doing it is worth it’ (Ortiz de Urbina 1999b: 181)
\end{examples}
As will be shown in (\ref{sub:Compatibility-with-allocutive}) and
(\ref{sub:Occurrence-in-embedded}), the particle \emph{-a} could
be closer to complementizers than other modal particles, concerning
its syntactic behaviour and distribution.


\subsection{Compability with other particles}

Although the normative grammar of the Royal Academy of the Basque
Language postulates the contrary%
\footnote{Typologically there is no such restriction. In fact, more than one
particle can occur in the same sentence in languages such as Catalan
(Prieto \& Rigau 2007), Mandarin, Cantonese and Wenzhounese (Li 2006,
Kuong 2008), Japanese (Kuwabara 2013), German (Bayer and Trotzke 2015)
and Swedish (Swerf 2017) .%
}, there is evidence that the particle \emph{-a} is compatible with
the particle \emph{ote} in the same proposition, as shown in (\ref{adibide3}
and \ref{adibide3.1}):
\begin{examples}
\item \label{adibide3}\gll JONEK ote dia erran? \\
John.ERG P AUX.P say \\
\trans ‘Was it John who really said that?’ 
\item \label{adibide3.1}\gll Amatxi Iholdiko othe zena? \\
Grandmother Iholdi.GEN P be.P \\
\trans ‘Was our grandmother from Iholdi, I wonder?’ (Camino 2009: 193)
\end{examples}


This piece of data strongly suggests that the particles \emph{-a}
and \emph{ote} are compatible both syntactically and semantically%
\footnote{The presence of a particle reinforcing or marking a polarity question
and another one conveying an `I wonder' effect is well found in
other languages such as Lillooet Salish, Thompson Salish, Gitksan
(Littell et al 2010).%
}. Consequently, since \emph{-a} is compatible with the epistemic \emph{ote},
I propose that \emph{-a} has no other function than reinforcing that
the question is of the yes/no type. 

On the other hand, the particle \emph{al} cannot occur in the same
sentence with any other particles: 
\begin{examples}
\item \label{adibidearestrictional2}\gll *Auto gorria erosi {ote al} / {al ote} duzu?  \\
Car red.ART buy {P P} / {P P} AUX \\
\trans ‘Did you buy the red car?’ 
\item \label{adibidearestrictional3}\gll *Egia {omen al} / {al omen} da? \\
True {P P} / {P P} AUX \\
\trans ‘Is it true ?’ 
\end{examples}


The incompability between \emph{al} and \emph{ote} could be due to
the fact that they occupy the same syntactic position or because they
have similar semantics; nevertheless, I favour the syntactic approach,
since, on the one hand, \emph{al} is incompatible not only with \emph{ote},
but also with the other particles such as \emph{omen}, \emph{ei} and
\emph{bide} and, on the other hand, because \emph{ote} and \emph{al}
do not have the same semantics: whereas \emph{ote} reconducts the
addressee of the question to the speaker himself, \emph{al} is compatible
with a bona fide question.


\subsection{\label{sub:Compatibility-with-allocutive}Compatibility with allocutive
forms}

In Basque, when one is speaking to someone whom one would address
with the pronoun hi (or zu in eastern dialects such as Souletin and
Low Navarrese varieties), the finite verb requires the addition of
an allocutive morpheme which corresponds to the overt addressee, which
is in fact not an argument selected by the verb%
\footnote{This phenomenon is also attested in Japanese, in the so-called performative
honorific \emph{teinei-go} which expresses the relationship between
the speaker and the addressee (Harada, apud Oyharçabal 1993).%
}. As show in (\ref{23}), the auxiliary agreees with the subject (prefix
\emph{n-}, 1st sg. abs) but it also agrees with the addressee (\emph{-k}
2nd sg. alc.mas and \emph{-n} 2nd sg.alc.fem). These morphemes, \emph{-k}
and \emph{-n}, are not an argument selected by the verb:
\begin{examples}
\item \label{23}\gll Barakaldora    etorri    nauk/-n \\
Barakaldo.ALL come AUX.\textsubscript{1SG.ABS.2SG.\textbf{ALC}.M/2SG.\textbf{ALC}.F} \\
\trans ‘I’ve come to Barakaldo.’ 
\end{examples}


Oyharçabal (1993) shows that in classic Basque and in the eastern
dialects the allocutive cannot occur if the particle \emph{-a} is
present. Therefore, even if the context leads to its use, the neutral
form will be used:\foreignlanguage{basque}{\renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{equation}}.
\setcounter{equation}{25}}
\begin{examples}
\item \gll Hire amak    ba-daki-(-*k) -a? \\
your mother CL-know\textsubscript{3SG.ABS.3SG.ERG -(ALC)} -P \\
\trans ‘Does your mother know that?’ 
\end{examples}


This restriction is not related to the fact that the sentence is a
yes/no question; although it is a generally acknowledged fact that
questions in eastern dialects are a barrier for the allocutive forms
(Alberdi 1994), we can find polarity questions inflected with the
allocutive form in recent works (Coyos 1999: 205, Santazilia 2009:
234, Etchebest 2014):
\begin{examples}
\item \label{ez}\gll Hun züzün? \\ 
Good AUX.\textsubscript{\textbf{ALC}F/FO.}.PST \\
\trans ‘Were you ok?’ (Coyos 1999: 205)
\item \label{ez1}\gll Hire lagun bat duk? \\ 
your friend one AUX.ALC \\
\trans ‘Is s/he your friend?’ (Thikoipe 2009: 39)
\end{examples}


As stated above, \emph{-a }cannot appear in contexts such as (\ref{ez}
\& \ref{ez1}) where the allocutive morpheme is present, although
they are polarity questions.

However, the central particle \emph{al} can attach to an allocutive
auxiliary form:
\begin{examples}
\item \gll Jaiatekuak       al dituk oiek? \\
festivals.ART P AUX.ALC those \\
\trans ‘Are those ones for festivals?’ (Altzaga 1888) 
\end{examples}


Therefore, the two question particles pattern differently with respect
to their compatibility with the allocutive paradigm.


\subsection{\label{sub:Occurrence-in-embedded}Occurrence in embedded questions}

Finally, these particles do not behave similarly regarding their occurrence
in indirect questions%
\footnote{If we observe particles from other languages such as \emph{ka} in
Japanese, \emph{ma} in Mandarin and \emph{si} in Italian, we realise
that not all of them behave similarly in embedded questions: some
(the Japanese and the Italian particles) must appear in indirect questions,
others (the Mandarin and Cantonese particles) are not possible in
such contexts. Therefore, we could separate particles into two groups
regarding their posibility to occur in embedded questions.%
}. On the one hand, \emph{-a} cannot appear in embedded sentences.
This particle and complementizers both seem to occupy the same position:
\begin{examples}
\item \gll Hemen bizi de(*-a)n galdegin du.  \\
here live AUX(-*P)C ask AUX \\
\trans ‘S/he asks whether s/he lives here.’ (Euskaltzaindia 1987: 500)
\end{examples}


On the other hand, \emph{al} and complementizers both can occur in
the same clause:
\begin{examples}
\item \gll Entzuten al duzun galdetzen dizut. \\
listen.IPFV P AUX.C ask.IPFV AUX \\
\trans ‘I’m asking whether you are listening me.’ (Lertxundi, apud de Rijk 2008: 442)
\end{examples}


Moreover, the particle \emph{al} can occur adjacent not only to the
auxiliary of the embedded questions, but also to the auxiliary of
the main clause:
\begin{examples}
\item \gll Ez al zizuten galdetu beti hemen bizi behar al zenuen? \\   
not P AUX   ask      always here live must P AUX \\
\trans ‘Didn’t they ask you whether you had to live here forever.’ (Irazusta, apud de Rijk 2008: 443)
\end{examples}


The occurrence of the particle in both the main and the embedded clauses
provides evidence to limit the field of use of the particle \emph{al},
since each particle in example (24) has scope over one clause%
\footnote{As stated by Li (2006: 30), the mandarin particle \emph{ma }has not
an embedded question reading, although it occurs adjacent to the embedded
clause; it will be always interpreted as a matrix yes/no question:

\selectlanguage{basque}%
\setcounter{equation}{0}

\selectlanguage{british}%
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\roman{equation}}
\begin{example}
\gll Hóngjiàn xiăng zhīdào Xiăofú huì zuò yú ma \\ 
Hongjian want know Xiaofu can cook fish PRT \\
\trans *‘Hongjian wonders if Xiaofu can cook fish.’ 
\trans ‘Does Hongjian want to know that Xiaofu can cook fish?’
\end{example}%
}.\foreignlanguage{basque}{\setcounter{equation}{32}}


\subsection{Interim conclusions}

In view of the evidence at hand, I conclude that \emph{al} and \emph{-a}
do not behave similarly; consequently, I propose that they occupy
separate positions in the syntactic structure. 

The following section discusses the analyses put forward so far within
the Generative framework and dismisses some aspects of these hypotheses
on further empirical grounds.


\section{Previous analyses}

In this section I will present the grammatical issues which neither
of the analyses proposed previously in Basque grammar can solve entirely;
the analyses under examination are the following: Albizu 1991, Elordieta
1997, Elordieta 2001, Haddican 2008, Arregi \& Nevins 2012. I classify
the issues found in two groups: 1) the negation-particle scope issue
and 2) other syntactic issues. 


\subsection{Who c-commands whom}

It is an acknowledged fact that in positive sentences particles c-command
the proposition, since they contribute to the interpretation of the
whole proposition. However, in negative contexts negation also must
c-command the whole proposition, therefore, there is a conflict between
particles and negation. 

As Haddican (2008) and Etxepare (2010) point out, in Basque the particle
has scope over the negation and, therefore, over the whole proposition.
Consider the following example:
\begin{examples}
\item \label{27}\gll Ez omen zuen urik topatu \\
not P AUX water.PTV find \\
\trans ‘Reportedly, s/he didn't find water.’ (Haddican 2008: 72) 
\end{examples}


The interpretation of this example is that \textquotedbl{}it is said
that s/he didn't find water\textquotedbl{}; this proves that the particle
c-command the negation because it adds evidentialty to the negative
sentence. If the negation c-commanded the particle, the interpretation
would be \textquotedbl{}it is not true that it is said that s/he found
water\textquotedbl{}. However, this is not the interpretation speakers
get. The next example further clarifies the relationship between particle
and negation:
\begin{examples}
\item \label{27-1}\gll Ez omen zen Oiartzunen jaio, \# baina ez omen zen kanpoan jaio ere. \\
not P AUX Oiartzun.IN get.born {} but not P AUX out.IN get.born too \\
\trans ‘S/he’s said not to have got born in Oiartzun, but s/he’s said not to have got born outside Oiartzun.’ (Haddican 2008: 72) 
\end{examples}
The interpretation of this example is not acceptable in terms of the
pragmatics, although it is grammatically correct: speakers are given
the impression of a person who was born nowhere. The reason why the
continuation of (\ref{27}) is pragmatically infelicitous is because,
according to Haddican (2008), this suggets that the particle c-commands
the negation. Indeed, if negation c-commanded the particle, the interpretation
would be totally normal, i.e. it is not the case that s\textbackslash{}he
is said to have been born in Oiartzun but it is not the case that
s\textbackslash{}he is said to have been born outside Oiartzun. Nevertheless,
once again, this is not the interpretation speakers get. Therefore,
particles c-command negation.

Based on this piece of data, Haddican (2008) and Etxepare (2010) propose
that particles are head of ModalP located between PolarityP and IP/TP
inside which negation is generated; therefore, in these analyses particles
c-command negation as claimed recently. Even though negation moves
to PolarityP, i.e. over the phrase hosting particles, it reconstructs
to its TP-internal position and, hence, we get the scope facts right.

The analyses of Elordieta (1997) and Elordieta (2001) also claim that
particles occupy the head of ModalP; however, this phrase is located
between IP/TP and VP and not on the top of the proposition. Therefore,
regarding the scope over the whole proposition, neither Elordieta
(1997) nor Elordieta (2001) meet the criteria of the scope domain
of the particles over IP/TP%
\footnote{Elordieta (1997) explains the scope domain of the particles over the
whole proposition by LF-raising of the particle to CP.%
}. 

Concerning the negation, the two analyses diverge: Elordieta (1997)
suggests that it occupies a position below IP/TP, whereas Elordieta
(2001) claims that it occupies a position above IP/TP:
\begin{examples}
\item {[}TP. . . {[}AuxP. . . {[}ModP. . . {[}NegP. . . {[}VP{]}{]}{]}{]}{]}{]}
(Elordieta 1997)
\item {[}NegP. . . {[}TP. . . {[}AuxP. . . {[}ModP. . . {[}VP{]}{]}{]}{]}{]}{]}
(Elordieta 2001)
\end{examples}
Regarding the fact that particles c-command negation, Elordieta (1997)
explains the hierarchical relationship between particles and negation;
Elordieta (2001), however, does not, since in this proposal particles
are in any case located below negation and, as shown in (\ref{27}),
particles being c-commanded by negation would lead to an incorrect
interpretation. 

Therefore, these analyses cannot totally explain the scope showed
by particles since ModP is located below IP/TP%
\footnote{The hypotheses of Albizu (1991) and Arregi \& Nevins (2012) do in
principle meet the criteria of the scope domain of particles over
IP/TP:
\begin{examples}
\item {[}CP {[}C{]} {[}ModP {[}IP {[}Mod{]} {]}{]}{]} (Albizu 1991)
\item {[}CP {[}ModP {[}TP {[}Mod{]} {]}{]} {[}C{]} {]} (Arregi \& Nevins
2012)
\end{examples}
However, they do not discuss the position of negation in the syntactic
structure; therefore, they cannot be tested according to this parameter. %
}.





In conclusion, question particles must occupy the highest position
on the syntactic diagram, higher than the negation%
\footnote{Although the negation has to move higher than the particle, it is
interpreted in the original position; therefore, the interpretation
of the particle is higher than the negation's (Haddican 2008).%
}.


\subsection{Other syntactic issues }

Now I will examine the hypotheses previously cited from a syntactic
perspective. This will provide the basis to elaborate and construct
a new analysis.


\subsubsection{Compatibility of the particles \emph{-a} and \emph{ote}}

As previously shown in examples (\ref{adibide3} \& \ref{adibide3.1})
and (\ref{adibide4}) below further corroborates, \emph{-a} and the
epistemic \emph{ote} can appear in the same sentence:
\begin{examples}
\item \label{adibide4}\gll Miñarri mendiaren sabela gatzez beterik ote datekea?  \\
Miñarri mountain.GEN belly salt.INS full P AUX.P \\ 
‘Might the belly of the Miñarri mountain be full of salt (I wonder)? (Camino 2009: 193)
\end{examples}


None of the five proposals we are evaluating here could admit both
particles in the same sentence because they provide the same head
for all of them; therefore, the particles \emph{-a} and \emph{ote}
should be assigned different heads.


\subsubsection{Restriction of the particle \emph{-a} in embedded questions}

Similarly, none of these five analyses can explain why the particle
\emph{-a} cannot appear in indirect questions. If it behaved like
the rest of the particles, we would expect it to occur in embedded
questions. The usual explanation says that the incompatibility with
the complementizers lies in the suffix character of \emph{-a}. Nonetheless,
as I have proposed above, if the particle \emph{-a} is the head of
the CP, or the Finite Phrase, the issue of the incompatibility with
the complementizers is immediately solved, since both the particle
and the complementizers will be occupying the same position. 


\subsubsection{Incompatibility of \emph{-a} with allocutive forms}

Considering that allocutive forms are excluded from any sentence where
C is filled by a lexical element or its trace such as relative clauses,
subjunctive complement sentences, indirect and direct questions, Oyharçabal
(1993) and Miyagawa (2012) claim that there must be a relationship
between allocutivity and complementizers. Therefore, they propose
that complementizers block the presence of allocutive forms, because
allocutivity can only arise when an allocutive operator moves from
{[}spec, TP{]} to {[}spec, CP{]} and C\textsuperscript{0} is empty
to be available to the operator (Oyharçabal 1993) or when an allocutive
probe, bearing uninterpretable agreement features, occupies the head
of CP, which accounts for the complementary distribution between complementizers
and allocutivity (Miyagawa 2012). 

This hypothesis would explain 1) that \emph{-a} cannot occur with
allocutive forms and 2) neither arise in embedded sentences. 

Therefore, as in 3.2.2., none of these five hypotheses can explain
why the particle \emph{-a} cannot appear with allocutive forms. 


\subsection{Interim conclusion}

To sum up all the information presented so far in this third section,
we should consider the following before proposing the syntactic localization
of the particles: 

a) Particles c-command negation; in fact, their scope domain is over
IP/TP.

b) Allocutivity (Oyharçabal 1997, Miyagawa 2012) and complementizers
occupy C\textsuperscript{0} (Ortiz de Urbina 1999b); none of them
is compatible with the particle \emph{-a}, but they both are with
\emph{al}. Therefore, \emph{-a} seems to occupy the same position
as allocutivity and complementizers. 

c) Evidence from morphonological, syntactic and prosodic fields proves
that particles and auxiliaries merge; indeed, they form a morphonological
word (Elordieta 1997). 

Therefore, since these particles have been shown not to behave similarly
in some aspects, I conclude that they do not constitute a single group
i.e. they seem to form two different kinds of particles (cf. Li 2006
on outer and inner particles) and they occupy separate syntactic positions.
In the following section I will bring more arguments for assigning
them different syntactic positions. 


\section{Towards a new analysis of \emph{al} and \emph{-a}}


\subsection{A new proposal for the particle \emph{al} }

I propose that \emph{al} occupies the head of the Particle Phrase
(Bayer \& Obenauer 2011), and that so do the rest of the particles
except \emph{-a}, since more than one of these particles cannot occur
at the same time. I suggest that the Particle Phrase is located between
the Finite Phrase and the Inflectional or Tense Phrase due to the
following two considerations:

a) With the exception of \emph{-a} which may be considered as a way
to reinforce the polarity question type, the particles \emph{al},\emph{
bide},\emph{ omen/ei }and \emph{ote} do not mark the clause type%
\footnote{For instance, it would not be grammatically correct to ask a question
using the particle \emph{ote} alone, e.g. {[}\emph{Paulek nori liburua
eman ote dio}?{]} (Paule to whom the book gave, I'm wondering) although
this particle only occurs in questions; other syntactic operations
are required to form a question such as fronting of the Verb and Auxiliary
and movement of the Wh-word in the case of Wh-questions.%
}; in fact, typologically the occurrence of particles depends on the
clause type (Coniglio \& Zegrean 2010, Cardinaletti 2011, Haegeman
2014).

b) As I have indicated the particle \emph{al} and the complementizer
\emph{-(e)n} are compatible in the same clause. If we look at the
order of the constituents, i.e. V-Part-Aux-C, the complementizer%
\footnote{According to Cinque (1999: 56) it always marks the limit of the periphery
where particles occur.%
} is the last one to appear. Indeed, if the particle were hierarchically
higher, there would be a problem with the interpretation because the
particle would c-command the complementizer. 

For the time being, I will consider that all the particles, except
\emph{-a}, occur in the same head, i.e. the head of the Particle Phrase.


\subsubsection{\label{sub:Syntactically-analysing-polarity}Analysing polarity questions
containing the particle \emph{al: }direct yes/no questions}

In this section I will present my analysis for the particle \emph{al}
and prove that it solves the problems of the previous analyses. 

First, let us consider a standard yes/no question containing the particle
\emph{al}, such as (\ref{adibideal}):
\begin{examples}
\item \label{adibideal}\gll Ikusi al dezu   poligono     hori?  \\
See   P AUX industrial-area that \\
\trans ‘Have you seen that industrial area over there?’ (Txurruka \& Urbieta 2003: 148)
\end{examples}


The derivation proceeds as in (41). I suggest that the particle has
a {[}\emph{u}Tense{*}{]} feature which is strong (Adger 2003) and
T\textsuperscript{0} has a {[}Tense{]} feature; after checking features,
the strength of the particle triggers movement of T\textsuperscript{0}
to Part\textsuperscript{0}. Additionally, T\textsuperscript{0} has
a {[}\emph{u}Q{*}{]} feature transferred to the Part\textsuperscript{0}
once both heads merge. Therefore, since it is a polarity question,
the presence of a strong {[}Q{]} feature in the C\textsuperscript{0}
triggers movement of the Part\textsuperscript{0} to that location
so that they can check features. As stated in (\ref{sub:Modal-particles-in}),
the CP will be split only if FocusP and TopicP are activated; since
in this example there is no topic, no focal element, the CP field
is not articulated, so the target phrase of Part\textsuperscript{0}
is C\textsuperscript{0}. Finally, \emph{al} does not satisfy the
lexical necessity of the finite T\textsuperscript{0}, so, it attracts
the nearest lexical head under its c-command, i.e. the Verb head moves
to C\textsuperscript{0} constituting the following head: {[}V\textsuperscript{0}{[}{[}Part\textsuperscript{0}-
T\textsuperscript{0}{]}Ø{]}{]}:

\begin{example}
\begin{forest}baseline=(current bounding box.north)
[CP,s sep=3cm[][C'[C$^0$[V$^0$[Ikusi,tier=word,name=a2]][C$^0$[Part$^0$[{al dezu{[}\sout{\emph{u}Q}{*}{]}},tier=word,name=ind]][C$^0$[Ø,tier=word]]]][PartP[TP[vP[poligono hori \sout{ikusi}\\{},align=center,base=bottom,triangle, name=a1]][T$^0$[\sout{dezu}{[}Tns{]}\\{[}\emph{u}Q{*}{]},align=center,base=bottom]{\draw[->] () .. controls +(east:1cm) and +(south:1.2cm) .. node[very near start,below,sloped]{\tiny 1} (part);}]][Part$^0$[\sout{al[}\sout{\emph{u}Tns}{*}{]},name=part]]]]]]
{\draw[->] (a1) .. controls +(east:1cm) and +(south:1.2cm) .. node[very near start,below,sloped]{\tiny 3} (a2);}
{\draw[->] (part) .. controls +(south east:2.7cm) and +(south:2.5cm) .. node[very near start,below,sloped]{\tiny 2} (ind);}
\end{forest}
\end{example}



Consequently, this analysis accounts for the syntactic relationship
and the hierarchical position between the particle and the auxiliary.


\subsubsection{Embedded questions}

Previously I have stated that the particle \emph{al} and the complementizer
\emph{-(e)n} are compatible, as shown in (\ref{embeddedal}). Now
I will further illustrate that this analysis can account for the use
of both particle and complementizer. Consider the following example:
\begin{examples}
\item \label{embeddedal}\gll Ea gazte bi, zaldi gañen, aizen erun jûten ikusi altzittuên galdetu ementziên.  \\ 
whether young two horse on wind.GEN way.IN going see P.AUX.C ask P.AUX \\
\trans ‘They reportedly asked whether they had seen two young people leaving by horse as fast as the wind.’ (Azurmendi 1996)
\end{examples}


First, since TopicP is activated in this example, the CP field is
articulated as detailed in (17), repeated here for convinience:
\begin{examples}
\item {[}(TopicP) {[}(Topic){]} {[}ForceP {[}Force{]} {[}(TopicP) {[}(Topic){]}
{[}FocusP {[}Focus{]} {[}FiniteP {[}...{]} {[}Finite{]} {]}{]}{]}{]}{]}
\end{examples}
Moreover, since it is an embedded question, the complementizer \emph{-(e)n}
appears in the Fin\textsuperscript{0}, following Ortiz de Urbina
(1999b). This permits the occurrence of \emph{al} in Part\textsuperscript{0}:
\begin{examples}
\item {[}... {[}ForceP {[}Force \emph{ea}{]} {[}TopicP {[}Topic \emph{gazte
bi}{]} {[}TopicP {[}Topic \emph{zaldi gañen}{]} {[}FiniteP {[}ParticleP
{[}IP {[}I' {[}vP \emph{aizen erun juten} \emph{ikusi} {]} {[}I\textsuperscript{0}
\emph{zittuen}{]}{]}{]} {[}Part\textsuperscript{0} \emph{al} {]}{]}
{[}Fin\textsuperscript{0} \emph{-(e)n}{]}{]}{]}{]}{]}{]}
\end{examples}


Therefore, as can be observed, the presence of the complementizer
does not prohibit the occurrence of the particle \emph{al} if they
are located in the C\textsuperscript{0}/Fin\textsuperscript{0} and
the Part\textsuperscript{0} respectively.


\subsubsection{The restriction of the particle \emph{al} }

Finally, I will provide evidence that this analysis explains the incompatibility
of the particle \emph{al} with any other particles, as shown in (\ref{adibidearestrictional2}-\ref{adibidearestrictional3})
and here in (\ref{adibidearestrictional}):
\begin{examples}
\item \label{adibidearestrictional}\gll Izan ote (*al) da euskal eskolarik pinturan?  \\
Be      P     P AUX basque school painting \\
\trans ‘Has there been a Basque school in painting (I wonder)?’ (MEIG, apud de Rijk 2008)
\end{examples}


As with the previous case, I will only examine the part concerning
the restriction of the particle \emph{al}. In this case the reason
for not ocurring with other particles is that they all occupy the
same position; therefore, if \emph{ote} occurs, \emph{al} cannot appear:

\begin{example}
\begin{forest}baseline=(current bounding box.north)
	[C, s sep=15mm[C$^0$][PartP[TP[VP[euskal pinturarik eskolan izan, triangle,tier=word]][T$^0$[da,name=Inf]]][Part$^0$[{*ote+al}\\{*al+ote}\\ote\\al,align=center,base=bottom,name=jok,tikz={\node [draw,black,fit to tree]{};}]]]]
\end{forest}
\end{example}



Up to this point I have presented a new analysis of the particle \emph{al};
below, I will proceed with the analysis of the particle \emph{-a}.


\subsection{A new proposal for the particle \emph{-a} }

I propose that the particle \emph{-a} is located in the head of the
CP or FiniteP (Rizzi 1997). Below I will present more evidence for
this position:

a) In other languages (Catalan, Japanese, Mandarin) Q-particles have
been located mainly in ForceP (or the phrases immediately around the
ForceP), which is claimed to mark the clause type (Li 2006, Prieto
\& Rigau 2007, Kuong 2008, Bailey 2013 and Kuwabara 2013). In fact,
this site is generally assigned to the complementizers in other languages,
but not in Basque. According to Ortiz de Urbina (1999b) Basque complementizers
occur in FinP. Consequently, it seems reasonable to propose the head
Fin\textsuperscript{0} as the position of the particle \emph{-a}.

b) Secondly, in Basque the particle merges with the auxiliary; in
Italian, however, the Q-particle does not merge with the auxiliary,
i.e. \emph{se} does not attract the inflected form in order to be
adjacent and can occur even in non-inflected contexts (Rizzi 2001).
We obtain also proof of the merging between the particle and the auxiliary
in Irish, since the copulative verb merges with the particle and changes
its form in this language:
\begin{examples}
\item \gll An     cosúil le   taibhse é ? \\
Q.COP like SOZ ghost 3SG.M.ACC \\
\trans ‘Is it like a ghost?’ (McCloskey 2005: 160) 
\end{examples}


Moreover, considering that the particle and auxiliary merge, if \emph{-a}
occupied Force\textsuperscript{0}, it would be difficult to explain
how they merge in such contexts as in (\ref{biharjinenhiza}) since
\emph{-a} would appear on its own in Force\textsuperscript{0 }%
\footnote{In Basque the focalised element trigers movement to {[}spec, FocP{]};
whereas the complex V\textsuperscript{0}-T\textsuperscript{0}/I\textsuperscript{0}
unit moves to Foc\textsuperscript{0}, in order to match features
between the operator of the focal element\emph{ }and the T\textsuperscript{0}/I\textsuperscript{0}.%
}:
\begin{examples}
\item \label{biharjinenhiza}\gll BIHAR        jinen           hiza? \\
tomorrow come.FUT AUX.P \\ 
\trans ‘Is it tomorrow when you’re coming here?’ 
\end{examples}
\begin{example}
\forestset{begin forest/.code=\normalsize}
\begin{forest}baseline=(current bounding box.north)
	[ForceP,s sep=2cm[][Force'[Force$^0$[-a]][FocP[AdvP[{BIHAR},tier=word,name=fok]][Foc',s sep=1cm[Foc$^0$[Foc$^0$][Fin$^0$[{jinen hiza},name=b]]][FinP[TP[\sout{BIHAR jinen hiz},triangle,name=a]][Fin$^0$[\sout{hiz-Ø},tier=word,name=jok]]]]]]]]]
\draw[->](a).. controls +(east:1cm) and +(south:1cm) .. node[near start,below]{\tiny 1} (jok);
\draw[->](jok).. controls +(south east:2cm) and +(south:1cm) .. node[very near start,below]{\tiny 2} (b);
\draw[->](a).. controls +(west:1cm) and +(south:1cm) .. (fok);
\end{forest}
\end{example}



An \emph{ad hoc} morphonological rule could be claimed in order to
amend this incorrect order, i.e. move the Force\textsuperscript{0}
to Foc\textsuperscript{0} at FF so that particle and inflected verb
are adjacent. Nevertheless, I suggest that the derivation is more
natural by locating the particle in Fin\textsuperscript{0}, considering
that the auxiliary would merge with the particle while triggering
movement to Foc\textsuperscript{0} %
\footnote{Since\emph{ -a} does not satisfy the lexical necessity of the T\textsuperscript{0},
the auxiliary form attracts the nearest lexical head under its c-command
domain, i.e. the Verb head moves to Foc\textsuperscript{0} constituting
{[}\emph{jinen} {[} {[}\emph{hiz}{]} {[}\emph{-a}{]} {]} {]}%
}:

\begin{example}
\forestset{begin forest/.code=\normalsize}
\begin{forest}baseline=(current bounding box.north)
	[FocP[AdvP[{BIHAR},tier=word,name=fok]][Foc',s sep=1cm[Foc$^0$[Foc$^0$][Fin$^0$[{jinen hiza},name=b]]][FinP[TP[\sout{BIHAR jinen hiz},triangle,name=a]][Fin$^0$[\sout{hiz-a},tier=word,name=jok]]]]]]]
\draw[->](a).. controls +(east:1cm) and +(south:1cm) .. node[near start,below]{\tiny 1} (jok);
\draw[->](jok).. controls +(south east:2cm) and +(south:1cm) .. node[very near start,below]{\tiny 2} (b);
\draw[->](a).. controls +(west:1cm) and +(south:1cm) .. (fok);
\end{forest}
\end{example}

c) Finally, I would like to present a fossilised usage which provides
more evidence in favor of the Fin\textsuperscript{0} as position
of \emph{-a}:
\begin{examples}
\item \gll NIK-a? [Nik hori erran duta?]  \\
I-P [I that say AUX.P]\\
\trans ‘Me? [Did I say that?]’ (Euskaltzaindia 1987: 500)
\end{examples}


In this case%
\footnote{There have been found another similar structures in eastern dialects
(Larrasquet 1931, 1935, Estornes 1985):\foreignlanguage{basque}{\setcounter{equation}{0}}

\renewcommand{\theequation}{\roman{equation}}
\begin{example}
\gll Baia? [Bai - a]  \\
yes.P\\
\trans 'Really?'
\end{example}



\renewcommand{\theequation}{\roman{equation}}
\begin{example}
\gll Eza? [Ez - a]  \\
no.P\\
\trans 'No?'
\end{example}



\renewcommand{\theequation}{\roman{equation}}
\begin{example}
\gll Kemena? [Kemen - a]  \\
here.P\\
\trans 'Here?'
\end{example}%
},\foreignlanguage{basque}{\setcounter{equation}{48}} apparently,
the particle \emph{-a} has not merged with the auxiliary, but the
focalised constituent: \emph{NIK-a}. If \emph{-a} were located in
Force\textsuperscript{0}, an \emph{ad-hoc} morphological movement
would be necessary; however, as illustrated in (\ref{=00005BForceP-=00005BFocP-NIK}),
the particle and the focus merge as a result of silencing the constituents
below the Finite Phrase:
\begin{examples}
\item \label{=00005BForceP-=00005BFocP-NIK}{[}ForceP {[}Force\textsuperscript{0}{]}
{[}FocP \emph{NIK} {[}Foc\textsuperscript{0} {]} {[}FinP {[}\emph{\sout{hori erran dut}}{]}{[}Fin\textsuperscript{0}
\emph{-a} {]} {]} {]} {]}
\end{examples}


Considering this evidence, I conclude that the particle \emph{-a}
occupies the head of the Finite Phrase (or the CP) differentiated
from the rest of the particles.


\subsubsection{Syntactically analysing polarity questions containing the particle
\emph{-a}:}

Now I will present my analysis for the particle \emph{-a} and, as
previously done in (\ref{sub:Syntactically-analysing-polarity}),
prove that it solves the problems of the preceding analyses. 


\subsubsection*{Direct yes/no questions}

After proposing a new position for \emph{-a}, now I will explain the
derivation of a yes/no question containing the particle \emph{-a}
step by step:
\begin{examples}
\item \gll Nahi (d)uka borroka?  \\
want AUX.P fight \\
\trans ‘Do you want to fight?’ (Etxamendi 2010[1989]: 74-75)
\end{examples}


Following Adger (2003), I theorise that the auxiliary has a {[}\emph{u}clause
type{*}{]} feature which is strong and \emph{-a} has a {[}Q{]} feature;
after checking features, the strength of the particle triggers movement
of T\textsuperscript{0} to C\textsuperscript{0}. Finally, \emph{-a}
does not satisfy the lexical necessity of the T\textsuperscript{0},
so, it attracts the nearest lexical head under its c-command domain,
i.e. the Verb head moves to C\textsuperscript{0} constituting the
following head: {[}V\textsuperscript{0}{[}{[}T\textsuperscript{0}-
C\textsuperscript{0}{]}{]}{]}

\begin{example}
\forestset{begin forest/.code=\normalsize}
\begin{forest}baseline=(current bounding box.north)
	[CP,s sep=1cm[C$^0$[V$^0$[nahi,tier=word,name=inf2]][C$^0$[T$^0$[duk{[}{\sout{\emph{u}Q}{*}{}]},tier=word,name=inf3]][C$^0$[a{[}{Q}{]},tier=word]]]][TP,s sep=1cm[pro][T'[vP[borroka \sout{nahi}\\{},triangle,align=center,base=bottom,name=a]{\draw[->] () .. controls +(east:1cm) and +(south:1.2cm) .. node[very near start,below,sloped]{\tiny 2} (inf2);}][T$^0$[\sout{duk}{[}{\emph{u}Q}{*}{]},name=inf]{\draw[->] () .. controls +(south:1cm) and +(south:1cm) .. node[very near start,below,sloped]{\tiny 1} (inf3);}]]]]]
\end{forest}
\end{example}



Consequently, this analysis explains the syntactic relationship and
the hierarchical position between the particle and the auxiliary.


\subsubsection{Embedded questions}

As noted above, \emph{-a} and complementizers are in complementary
distribution. Therefore, in an embedded question, since the complementizer
\emph{-(e)n} appears in the Fin\textsuperscript{0} following Ortiz
de Urbina (1999b), this impedes the occurrence of \emph{-a}:
\begin{examples}
\item \gll Jin denetz galdetu dute \\
arrive AUX.C ask AUX \\
\trans ‘They have asked if s/he has arrived.’ 
\end{examples}
\begin{example}
\forestset{begin forest/.code=\normalsize}
\begin{forest}baseline=(current bounding box.north)
	[V'[ForceP, s sep=2cm[{Op[Q]}][Force'[Force[{Ø[Q]},tikz={\node [draw,red,fit to tree]{};},name=op]][FinP[TP[VP[jin,triangle]][T[da]]][Fin[-(e)n(etz)\\{*-a},align=center, base=bottom,name=jok,tikz={\node [draw,black,fit to tree]{};}]]]]][V[{\textless{}galdetu\textgreater{}[Q]},tikz={\node [draw,red,fit to tree]{};},name=a]]]
\draw[->,dotted](a).. controls +(south:2cm) and +(north east:2cm) .. (op);
\end{forest}
\end{example}



If \emph{-a} were in the Part\textsuperscript{0}, there would be
no impediment for \emph{-a} to appear in this kind of sentence. However,
we know it cannot; therefore, this analysis explains its restriction.


\subsubsection{Polarity questions where two particles occur: \emph{-a} and \emph{ote}}

Finally, I will prove that this analysis explains the compatibility
of \emph{-a} with other particles such as \emph{ote}, as shown in
(41):
\begin{examples}
\item \gll JONEK   ote    dia  erran? \\
John.ERG P AUX.P say \\
\trans ‘Was it John who really said that?’ 
\end{examples}


The particle \emph{-a} occupies the head of FinP, since the presence
of a focalised element activates the split CP; and, on the other hand,
\emph{ote} is located in the head of PartP. Therefore, as shown in
the diagram, there is no restraint for these particles to occur in
the same proposition:

\begin{example}
\forestset{begin forest/.code=\normalsize}
\begin{forest}baseline=(current bounding box.north)
	[ForceP,s sep=2cm[][Force',s sep=2cm[Force][FocP[DP[{JONEK},tier=word,name=fok]][Foc',s sep=0.5cm[Foc$^0$[Foc$^0$][Fin$^0$[{ote dia},tier=word,name=b]]][FinP[PartP[TP[\sout{JONEK} erran \sout{du},triangle,name=a]][Part$^0$[\sout{ote},tier=word,name=part]]][Fin$^0$[\sout{-a},tier=word,name=jok]]]]]]]]]
\draw[->](a).. controls +(east:1cm) and +(south:1cm) .. node[near start,below]{\tiny 1} (part);
\draw[->](part).. controls +(east:1cm) and +(south:1cm) .. node[near start,below]{\tiny 2} (jok);
\draw[->](jok).. controls +(south east:2cm) and +(south:1cm) .. node[very near start,below]{\tiny 3} (b);
\draw[->](a).. controls +(west:1cm) and +(south:1cm) .. (fok);
\end{forest}
\end{example}



In addition to this, in this example it can be observed that if the
particle were in Force\textsuperscript{0}, the inflected verb and
\emph{-a} would not merge, unless an \emph{ad hoc} movement of \emph{-a}
to Foc\textsuperscript{0} were employed. 


\section{Summary}

In this paper I have examined two particles which occur in polarity
questions in Basque, the eastern particle \emph{-a} and the central
particle \emph{al}. Considering that they have a different behaviour
in three relevant aspects (they are not used in the same way in embedded
questions, with allocutive forms and with respect to other particles),
I propose that they each belong to a separate set of particles (Hagstrom
2004, Kuong 2008) and that they occupy separate syntactic positions:
\emph{-a} occurs in the head of CP or FinP and \emph{al} appears in
the head of Particle Phrase. This last phrase is located between FinP
and TP and the other (epistemic and evidential) particles (\emph{ote},
\emph{omen/ei, bide}) occupy the same position. 

This provides us with evidence that propositions can be marked as
questions by using particles from two positions: an outer position
(Li 2006, Prieto \& Rigau 2007, Kuong 2008, Kuwabara 2013) and an
inner position (Hagstrom 1993, Duffield 2004, Bayer \& Obenauer 2011).
As can be seen, these positions have been proposed for other languages
and, consequently, two kinds of particles appear to exist (Li 2006)
across languages: outer particles and inner particles. Outer particles
are claimed to occupy a position in the Left Periphery and inner particles
are stated to occur in the area below the CP. 
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{key-1}Adger, David, 2003, \emph{Core Syntax. A minimalist
Approach}. Oxford University Press, New York.

\bibitem{key-16}\foreignlanguage{basque}{Alberdi, X., 1994, \emph{Euskararen
tratamenduak: erabilera. }EHU-UPV.}

\bibitem{key-2}Albizu, Pablo, 1991, “Sobre la existencia del Movimiento
Largo de Núcleos en Euskera”. Eskuizkribua, Instituto Universitario
Ortega y Gasset, Madrid.

\bibitem{key-3}Arregi, Karlos \& Andrew Nevins, (2012), \emph{Morphotactics.
Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout}. Springer, Dordrecht;
New York.

\bibitem{key-4}Aurrekoetxea, Gotzon, Iñaki Gaminde \& Aitor Iglesias,
2011, “Corpus based prosodic variation in Basque: y/n questions marked
with the particle al”. \emph{Estudios de Fonética Experimental}, XX,
11-31.

\bibitem{key-5}Azkue, Resurrección María, 1923, \emph{Morfología
vasca. }Euskaltzaindia\emph{.}

\bibitem{key-5}Bailey, Laura, 2013, \emph{The Syntax of Question
Particles}. Newcastle University.

\bibitem{key-6}Bayer, Jusef \& Hans Obenauer, 2011, “Discourse particles,
clause structure, and question types”. \emph{The Linguistic Review}
28, 449-491.

\bibitem{key-14}Bayer, Jusef \& Andreas Trotzke, 2015, ``The derivation
and interpretation of left peripheral discourse particles''. In J.
Bayer, R. Hinterhölz \& A. Trotzke (Eds.) Discourse-oriented Syntax,
13-40. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.

\bibitem{key-7}Camino, Iñaki, 2009, “Mugako hiztun eta aldaerak ipar-mendebaleko
Zuberoan”. \emph{Fontes Linguae Vasconum} 41, 111. n., 153-218.

\bibitem{key-5}Cardinaletti Anna, 2011, ``German and Italian Modal
Particles and Clause Structure''. \emph{Linguistic Review} 28 (4)
: 493-531.

\bibitem{key-8}Cinque, Guglielmo, 1999, \emph{Adverbs and functional
heads: a cross-linguistic perspective}, Oxford University Press, New
York.

\bibitem{key-2}Coniglio, Marco \& Iulia Zegrean, 2010, Splitting
up Force: evidence from discourse particles. In GIST 2 Conference
:Main Clause Phenomena. CRISSP \& GISP, Universiteit Gent.

\bibitem{key-9}Coyos, Jean Baptiste, 1999, \emph{Le parler basque
souletin des Arbailles: Une approche de l'ergativité}. L'Harmattan,
Paris.

\bibitem{key-10}Duffield, Nigel, 2007, “Aspects of Vietnamese clausal
structure: separating tense from assertion.” \emph{Linguistics}, 765-814.

\bibitem{key-3}Egg, Markus \& Johannes Mursell, 2016, ``The syntax
and semantics of discourse particles''. \emph{Discourse Particles.
Formal approaches to their syntax and semantics}, 15-48. Berlin, Boston:
De Gruyter. 

\bibitem{key-11}Elordieta, Gorka, 1997, \emph{Morphosyntactic Feature
Chains and Phonological Domains}. University of Southern California.

\bibitem{key-12}Elordieta, Arantzazu, 2001, \emph{Verb movement and
constituent permutation in Basque}. LOT, Utrech.

\bibitem{key-2}Etchebest, Xantiana, 2014, \emph{Zer eragin du Ikastolak
Xiberotar alokutiboaren gainean?}. Final Master’s Dissertation. UPPA.

\bibitem{key-13}Euskaltzaindia {[}The Royal Academy of the Basque
Language{]}, 1987, \emph{Euskal gramatika: lehen urratsak II}. Euskaltzaindia,
Bilbo.

\bibitem{key-14}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, 2011, \emph{Orotariko Euskal Hiztegia},
Bilbo. Euskaltzaindia. Available online: <http://www.euskaltzaindia.net/oeh>.

\bibitem{key-15}Etxepare, Ricardo, 2010, “Omen bariazioan”. In B.
Fernández, P. Albizu \& R. Etxepare (arg.) \emph{Euskara eta euskarak:
aldakortasun sintaktikoa aztergai}, EHU, Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia,
Bilbao : {[}Donostia{]}.

\bibitem{key-16}Goenaga, Patxi, 2009, “Hauta-galderez”. \emph{ASJU}
43, 381-404.

\bibitem{key-1}Hack, Franziska Maria, 2014, “The Particle Po In The
Varieties Of Dolomitic Ladin – Grammaticalisation From A Temporal
Adverb Into An Interrogative Marker”. \emph{Studia linguistica: A
journal of general linguistics}, 68-1, 49-76

\bibitem{key-17}Haddican, William, 2006 “Sentence polarity and word
order in Basque.” In: \emph{The Linguistic Review}, Vol. 21, No. 2,
p. 87-124.

\bibitem{key-18}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, 2008, \textquotedbl{}Euskararen
espez-buru-osagarri hurrenkeraren aldeko argudio batzuk\textquotedbl{}.
In I. Arteatx, X. Artiagoitia, A. Elordieta (arg.), \emph{Antisimetriaren
Hipotesia vs Buru-parametroa: euskararen oinarrizko hurrenkera ezbaian},
EHU: Bilbo, 87-124. 

\bibitem{key-4}Haegeman, Liliane, 2014, ``West flemish verb-based
discourse markers and the articulation of the speech act layer''.
\emph{Studia Linguistica: A Journal of General Linguistics}. 68, 1,
116-139.

\bibitem{key-19}Hagstrom, Paul (2004). ``Particle movement in Sinhala
and Japanese''. In Dayal, V., and A. Mahajan (eds.), \emph{Clause
Structure in South Asian Languages}, Dordrecht: Kluwer. 227-252.

\bibitem{key-20}Hualde, Jose Ignacio. \& Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 2003,
\emph{A grammar of Basque}. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

\bibitem{key-21}Kuong, Io-Kei Joaquim, 2008, “Yes/no question particles
revisited: the grammatical functions of mo4, me1, and maa3”. \emph{Proceedings
of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics }(NACCL-20),
The Ohio State University, Ohio, 715-733.

\bibitem{key-22}Kuwabara, Kazuki, 2013, “Peripheral effects in Japanese
questions and the fine structure of CP”. \emph{Lingua} 126, 92-119.

\bibitem{key-7}\foreignlanguage{basque}{Lafitte, P., 1987{[}1944{]},
\emph{Grammaire basque: (navarro-labourdin littéraire)}. Elkar, Donostia.}

\bibitem{key-11}\foreignlanguage{basque}{Laka, M.I., 1990, \emph{Negation
in syntax: on the nature of functional categories and projections}.
MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.}

\bibitem{key-23}Li, Boya, 2006, \emph{Chinese Final Particles and
the Syntax of the Periphery}. LOT, Utrech.

\bibitem{key-15}Littell, Patrick, Lisa Matthewson \& Tyler Peterson,
2010, ``On the semantics of Conjectural Questions''. In T. Peterson
\& U. Sauerland (Eds.) \emph{Evidence from Evidentials,} 98-104. University
of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 28.

\bibitem{key-9}McCloskey, James, 2005, “A note on predicates and
heads in Irish clausal syntax”. In: Carnie, Andrew, Heidi Harley and
Sheila Ann Dooley (arg.), \emph{Verb First: On the syntax of verb-initial
languages}. xiv, 155-174.

\bibitem{key-24}Mensching, Guido, 2015, “New Insights on the Question
Particle a in Sardinian”. \emph{Isogloss}, 7-40. 

\bibitem{key-25}Miyagawa, Shigeru, 2012, “Agreements that occur mainly
in the main clause.” In L. Aelbrecht (ed. and introd.); L. Haegeman,
(ed. and introd.); R. Nye (ed. and introd.); \emph{Main Clause Phenomena}:
New Horizons. Amsterdam, Netherlands; Benjamins, 79-111.

\bibitem{key-8}Monforte, Sergio, 2015, \emph{Galdera-partikulak euskaraz}.
Final Master’s Dissertation. UPV/EHU.

\bibitem{key-27}Ortiz de Urbina, Jon,\foreignlanguage{basque}{ 1989,
``Dislocaciones verbales en estructuras de polaridad'', \emph{ASJU}
23-2, 393-410.}

\bibitem{key-4}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, 1993, “Checking Domains in Basque
and Breton”, \emph{ASJU} 27-3, 751-775.

\bibitem{key-28}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, 1999a, ``Focus in Basque''.
In G. Rebuschi \& L. Tuller (Eds.) \emph{The Grammar of Focus}, 311-334.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

\bibitem{key-13}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, 1999b, “Focus Phrases, Force
Phrases and Left Heads in Basque”. \emph{Amsterdam Studies in the
Theory and History of Linguistic Science, }4, John Benjamins, 179-194.

\bibitem{key-29}Oyharçabal, Bernard, 1993, “Verb agreement with nonarguments:
on allocutive agreement”. In J. I. Hualde \& J. Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.)
\emph{Generative Stuides in Basque Linguistics}, John Benjamins, 89-114.

\bibitem{key-1}Paul , Waltraud \& Victor Junnan Pan, 2017, ``What
you see is what you get: Chinese sentence-final particles as head-final
complementizers''. In J. Bayer \& V. Struckmeier (Eds.) \emph{Discourse
particles. Formal approaches to their syntax and semantics}, 49-77.\emph{.
}Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 

\bibitem{key-30}Prieto, Pilar \& Gemma Rigau, 2007, “The Syntax-Prosody
Interface: Catalan interrogative sentences headed by que”. \emph{Journal
of Portuguese Linguistics}, 6-2, 29-59.

\bibitem{key-31}de Rijk, Rudolf, 1969, ``Is Basque an S.O.V. Language?''.\emph{
Fontes Linguae Vasconum 1. 319-351}

\bibitem{key-10}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, 2008, \emph{Standard basque: a
progressive grammar}. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

\bibitem{key-32}Rivero, Maria Luisa, 1993, “Finiteness and second
position in Long Head Movement languages: Breton and Slavic”. Paper
read at the Lunch April 1993 meeting of Eurotyp Project Group 3.

\bibitem{key-33}Rizzi, Luigi, 1997, “The Fine Structure of the Left
Periphery”. In L. Haegeman (arg.) \emph{Elements of Grammar}, Dordrecht:
Kluwer, 281-337.

\bibitem{key-34}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, 2001, “On the Position “Int(errogative)”
in the Left Periphery of the Clause”. In G.Cinque and G.Salvi, eds.,
\emph{Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo
Renzi}, 287-296. Amsterdam: Elsevier North-Holland.

\bibitem{key-2}Scherf, Nathalie, 2016, ``The syntax of Swedish modal
particles''. \emph{Discourse Particles. Formal approaches to their
syntax and semantics}, 78-99. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.

\bibitem{key-12}Uriagereka, Juanm 1995, “An F Position in Western
Romance”. In K. Kiss (ed.): \emph{Discourse configurational languages},
153-175. New York: Oxford University Press.

\bibitem{key-6}Xiang, Xuehua, 2012, ``External information processing
versus property ascertaining: A discourse-pragmatic study of three
yes/no question particles in Shishan (Hainan Island, China)''. \emph{Text
\& Talk} 32-2, 225-280.

\bibitem{key-35}Zuazo, Koldo, 2014, \emph{Euskalkiak}. Elkar, Donostia.

\end{thebibliography}

\section*{Corpus}


\subsection*{Central dialect works}

\noindent
\hangindent=\parindent
\hangafter=1 Altzaga, Toribio, 1888, “Aterako gera”. In \emph{Neskazar, Amantxi,
Aterako gera, Biozberak}. Auspoa Liburutegia. Sendoa argitaldaria,
Oiartzun. Available online: <http://www.euskaltzaindia.eus/dok/iker\_jagon\_tegiak/auspoa/7640.pdf>

\noindent Azurmendi, Joxe Migel, 1996, \emph{Ataungo euskara}, Goiherriko
Euskal Eskola Kultur Elkartea, Lazkao.

\noindent Txurruka, Alazne \& Josune Urbieta, 2003, \emph{Debako
euskara}. Ostolaza Kultur Elkartea, Deba.


\subsection*{Eastern dialect works}

\noindent Etxamendi, Eñaut, 2010{[}1989{]}, “Gilentegiko Gilen”.
In \emph{Idazlanen bilduma}, 3, 9-184. 

\noindent \foreignlanguage{basque}{Estornes, José, 1985, ``Zoilo'ren
uzta''. \emph{FLV, }17, 45. zenb., 31-93.}

\noindent \foreignlanguage{basque}{Iker UMR 5478, 2009, Norantz proiektua.
Interneten eskuragarri: <http://www.norantz.org>.}

\noindent \foreignlanguage{basque}{Larrasquet, Jean, 1931, ``Beñát,
Larrajáko belhagilii''. \emph{RIEV} 22-2 : 229-240. }

\noindent\foreignlanguage{basque}{\rule{1.7cm}{0.5pt}, 1935, ``Beñát,
Larrajáko belhagilii''. \emph{RIEV} 26-1 : 137-145. }

\noindent Thikoipe, Mixel, 2009, \emph{Jin bezala}. Maiatz.
\end{document}
