1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Variation
  4. Volume 19, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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 -questions and polar questions. For -questions, we provide evidence for the claim that the particle occupies an IP/TP-internal particle position and, when attaching to a -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.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.18002.tro
2019-07-04
2024-09-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lv.18002.tro
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abraham, W.
    1991 Discourse particles in German: How does their illocutive force come about?InW. 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. 10.1075/pbns.12.08abr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.12.08abr [Google Scholar]
  2. 2017 Discourse marker = discourse particle = thetical = modal particle? A futile comparison. InJ. Bayer & V. Struckmeier (eds.), Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics, 241–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alberdi, X.
    1994 Euskararen tratamenduak: erabilera. UPV-EHU.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Albizu, P.
    1991 Sobre la existencia del Movimiento Largo de Núcleos en Euskera. Manuscript, Madrid: Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset.
  5. Alcázar, A.
    2017 A syntactic analysis of rhetorical questions. InA. 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]
  6. Antonov, A.
    2015 Verbal allocutivity in a crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology19, 55–85. 10.1515/lingty‑2015‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Arregi, K. & A. Nevins
    2012 Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑3889‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3889-8 [Google Scholar]
  8. Artiagoitia, X. & A. Elordieta
    2016 On the semantic function and selection of Basque finite complementizers. InK. Boye & P. Kehayov (eds.), Complementizer Semantics in European Languages, 379–412. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110416619‑013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416619-013 [Google Scholar]
  9. Azkue, R. M.
    1923 Morfología vasca. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bayer, J., J. Häussler & M. Bader
    2016 A new diagnostic for cyclic wh-movement: Discourse particles in German questions. Linguistic Inquiry47, 591–629. 10.1162/LING_a_00224
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00224 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bayer, J. & H.-G. Obenauer
    2011 Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. The Linguistic Review28, 449–491. 10.1515/tlir.2011.013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2011.013 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bayer, J. & A. Trotzke
    2015 The derivation and interpretation of left peripheral discourse particles. InJ. Bayer, R. Hinterhölzl & A. Trotzke (eds.), Discourse-oriented Syntax, 13–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.226.02bay
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.226.02bay [Google Scholar]
  13. Cardinaletti, A.
    2011 German and Italian modal particles and clause structure. The Linguistic Review28, 493–531. 10.1515/tlir.2011.014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2011.014 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2015 Italian verb-based discourse particles in a comparative perspective. InJ. Bayer, R. Hinterhölzl & A. Trotzke (eds.), Discourse-oriented Syntax, 71–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.226.04car
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.226.04car [Google Scholar]
  15. Cardinaletti, A. & M. Starke
    1999 The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. InH. van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110804010.145
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804010.145 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cheng, L. L.-S.
    1997 On the Typology of Wh-Questions. New York/London: Garland Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Chomsky, N.
    1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 1980 Rules and Representations. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. 10.1017/S0140525X00001515
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00001515 [Google Scholar]
  19. 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. InR. 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]
  21. 2001 Derivation by phase. InM. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Cinque, G.
    1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Coniglio, M.
    2011 Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln: Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10.1524/9783050053578
     https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050053578 [Google Scholar]
  24. Coniglio, M. & I. Zegrean
    2012 Splitting up force: Evidence from discourse particles. InL. Aelbrecht, L. Haegeman & R. Nye (eds.), Main Clause Phenomena, 229–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.190.10con
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.190.10con [Google Scholar]
  25. Craenenbroeck, J. van
    2005 Adverbial modification under sluicing. InK. Choi & C. Yim (eds.), Ellipsis in Minimalism: Proceedings of the Seventh Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, 77–102. Seoul: Hankook.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 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 Pragmatics140, 33–48. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.015 [Google Scholar]
  27. Del Gobbo, F., N. Munaro & C. Poletto
    2015 On sentential particles: A cross-linguistic study. InS. Hancil, A. Haselow & M. Post (eds.), Final Particles, 359–386. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Dörre, L. & A. Trotzke
    2019 The processing of secondary meaning: An experimental comparison of focus and modal particles in wh-questions. InD. Gutzmann & K. Turgay (eds.), Secondary Content: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Side Issues, 144–168. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004393127_007
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004393127_007 [Google Scholar]
  29. Duhalde, M.
    in press. Frontières politiques et isoglosses: caractéristiques phonologiques du parler basque du Labourd côtier. Scriptum.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Egg, M. & M. Zimmermann
    2012 “Stressed out!” Accented discourse particles. The case of doch. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung16, 225–238.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Elordieta, A.
    2001 Verb Movement and Constituent Permutation in Basque. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Elordieta, A. & W. Haddican
    2016 Strategies of verb and verb phrase focus across Basque dialects. InB. Fernandez & J. Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), Microparameters in the Grammar of Basque, 221–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lfab.13.08elo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.13.08elo [Google Scholar]
  33. Elordieta, G.
    1997 Morphosyntactic Feature Chains and Phonological Domains. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.
  34. Emonds, J.
    1970 Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations. PhD dissertation, MIT.
  35. Etxepare, R.
    1998 A case for two types of focus in Basque. InE. Benedicto, M. Romero & S. Tomioka (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Focus, 65–81. Amherst: GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Etxepare, R. & B. Fernandez
    2013 Variation in Datives: A Micro-comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Euskaltzaindia [The Royal Academy of the Basque Language]
    Euskaltzaindia [The Royal Academy of the Basque Language] 1987 Euskal gramatika: lehen urratsak II. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Fernandez, B. & M. Rezac
    2013 Dative displacement in Basque. InB. Fernandez & R. Etxepare (eds.), Variation in Datives: A Micro-comparative Perspective, 256–282. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 2016 Differential object marking in Basque varieties. InB. Fernandez & J. Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), Microparameters in the Grammar of Basque, 93–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lfab.13.05fer
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.13.05fer [Google Scholar]
  40. Garmendia, J.
    2014 Ote: hiztunaren ziurtasunik eza. Gogoa12, 7–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Giannakidou, A. & A. Mari
    2018 The semantic roots of positive polarity: Epistemic modal verbs and adverbs in English, Greek and Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy41, 623–664. doi:  10.1007/s10988‑018‑9235‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-018-9235-1 [Google Scholar]
  42. Grosz, P.
    2014 German “doch”: an element that triggers a contrast presupposition. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society46, 163–178.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 2016a Discourse particles. To appear inL. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullmann & T. E. Zimmermann (eds.): The Companion to Semantics (SemCom). Oxford: Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2016b Information structure and discourse particles. InC. Fery & S. Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 336–358. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Gutzmann, D.
    2015 Use-Conditional Meaning: Studies in Multidimensional Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723820.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723820.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Haddican, W.
    2001 Basque functional heads. Manuscript NYU; June18 2001 Available online: www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Programs/Linguistics/LIBA/Haddican2001.pdf
  47. 2008 Euskararen espez-buru-osagarri hurrenkeraren aldeko argudio batzuk. InI. Arteatx, X. Artiagoitia & A. Elordieta (eds.), Antisimetriaren Hipotesia vs Buru-parametroa: euskararen oinarrizko hurrenkera ezbaian, 87–124. Bilbao: UPV-EHU.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Haegeman, L.
    2002 Anchoring to speaker, adverbial clauses, and the structure of CP. Georgetown University Working Papers in Linguistics17, 109–141.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 2014 West Flemish verb-based discourse markers and the articulation of the speech act layer. Studia Linguistica68, 116–139. 10.1111/stul.12023
     https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12023 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hill, V.
    2002 Complementizer Phrases (CP) in Romanian. Rivista di Linguistica14, 223–248.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Hooper, J. & S. Thompson
    1973 On the applicability of Root Transformations. Linguistic Inquiry4, 465–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 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]
  53. Hualde, J. I. & J. Ortiz de Urbina
    2003 A Grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110895285
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895285 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kratzer, A.
    1999 Beyond Ouch and Oops. How descriptive and expressive meanings interact. Paper presented at theCornell Conference on Context Dependency, Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 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]
  56. Kuwabara, K.
    2013 Peripheral effects in Japanese questions and the fine structure of CP. Lingua126, 92–119. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  57. Lafitte, P.
    1944 Grammaire Basque (Navarro Labourdin littéraire). Bayonne: Le Livre.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Laka, I.
    1990 Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. PhD dissertation, MIT.
  59. 1991 Sentence negation in Basque. Anuario Del Seminario De Filología Vasca/Julio de Urquijo, 899–926.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 1996 A brief grammar of Euskara: The Basque language. Vitoria-Gasteiz: UPV/EHU [https://www.ehu.eus/documents/2430735/0/A-brief-grammar-of-euskara.pdf/c624b834-0d8f-490e-9c00-fb660c05b308]
  61. Li, B.
    2006 Chinese Final Particles and the Syntax of the Periphery. Utrecht: LOT Dissertations.
  62. Lohnstein, H.
    2007 On clause types and sentential force. Linguistische Berichte209, 63–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Miyagawa, S.
    2012 Agreements that occur mainly in the main clause. InL. Aelbrecht, L. Haegeman & R. Nye (eds.), Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons, 79–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.190.04miy
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.190.04miy [Google Scholar]
  64. Monforte, S.
    2018 Question particles in Basque. Isogloss. A Journal on Variation of Romance and Iberian Languages4, 29–53. 10.5565/rev/isogloss.48
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.48 [Google Scholar]
  65. Munaro, N. & C. Poletto
    2002 Ways of clausal typing. Rivista di grammatica generativa27, 87–105.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 2008 Sentential particles and clausal typing in Venetan dialects. InB. 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]
  67. Murray, S.
    2017 The Semantics of Evidentials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199681570.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199681570.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  68. Nasu, N.
    2012 Topic particle stranding and the structure of CP. InL. Aelbrecht, L. Haegeman & R. Nye (eds.), Main Clause Phenomena, 205–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.190.09nas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.190.09nas [Google Scholar]
  69. Nikolaeva, I.
    2016 Analyses of the semantics of mood. InJ. Nuyts & J. van der Auwera (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, 68–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Nunes, J.
    2012 Sideward movement: Triggers, timing, and outputs. InM. Uribe-Etxebarria & V. Valmala (eds.), Ways of Structure Building, 114–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199644933.003.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199644933.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  71. Obenauer, H.-G.
    2006 Special interrogatives: Left periphery, wh-doubling, and (apparently) optional elements. InJ. Doetjes & P. González (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2004, 247–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.278.12obe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.278.12obe [Google Scholar]
  72. Ortiz de, Urbina J.
    1987 Operator movement and verb second phenomena in Basque. ASJU21, 321–355.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 1989 Dislocaciones verbales en estructuras de polaridad. ASJU23, 393–410.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Ortiz de Urbina, J.
    1992 Inversión y movimiento verbal en euskara. Revista Española De Lingüística22, 107–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Ortiz de, Urbina J.
    1993 Checking domains in Basque and Breton. ASJU27, 751–775.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 1994 Verb-initial patterns in Basque and Breton. Lingua94, 125–153. 10.1016/0024‑3841(94)90023‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(94)90023-X [Google Scholar]
  77. 1999 Force phrases, focus phrases and left heads in Basque. InJ. Franco & A. Landa (eds.), Grammatical Analyses in Basque and Romance Linguistics, 179–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  78. Oyharçabal, B.
    1993 Verb agreement with nonarguments: On allocutive agreement. InJ. I. Hualde & J. Ortiz de Urbina (eds.) Generative Studies in Basque Linguistics, 89–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.105.04oyh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.105.04oyh [Google Scholar]
  79. Paul, W. & V. J. Pan
    2017 What you see is what you get: Chinese sentence-final particles as head-final complementizers. InJ. Bayer & V. Struckmeier (eds.), Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics, 49–77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Pesetsky, D. & E. Torrego
    2007 The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. InS. Karimi, V. Samiian & W. K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.101.14pes
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.101.14pes [Google Scholar]
  81. Poletto, C. & R. Zanuttini
    2010 Sentential particles and remnant movement. InP. Benincà & N. Munaro (eds.) Mapping the Left Periphery, 201–227. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Potts, C.
    2007 The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics33, 165–198. 10.1515/TL.2007.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.011 [Google Scholar]
  83. de Rijk, R.
    1969 Is Basque an S.O.V. language?FLV3, 319–351.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 2008 Standard Basque: A Progressive Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Rizzi, L.
    1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. InL. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  86. 2014 Syntactic cartography and the syntacticisation of scope-discourse semantics. InA. Reboul (ed.), Mind, Values, and Metaphysics, 517–533. Dordrecht: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 2017 Locality and the functional sequence in the left periphery. InE. O. Aboh, E. Haeberli, G. Puskás, M. Schönenberger (eds.), Elements of Comparative Syntax: Theory and Description, 319–348. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501504037‑012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504037-012 [Google Scholar]
  88. Rojas-Esponda, T.
    2014 A discourse model for überhaupt. Semantics & Pragmatics7, 1–45. 10.3765/sp.7.1
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.1 [Google Scholar]
  89. Sauerland, U. & K. Yatsushiro
    2017 Remind-me presuppositions and speech-act decomposition: Evidence from particles in questions. Linguistic Inquiry48, 651–677. 10.1162/LING_a_00257
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00257 [Google Scholar]
  90. Thurmair, M.
    1989 Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111354569
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111354569 [Google Scholar]
  91. Trotzke, A.
    2017 The Grammar of Emphasis: From Information Structure to the Expressive Dimension. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501505881
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505881 [Google Scholar]
  92. Trotzke, A. & G. Turco
    2015 The grammatical reflexes of emphasis: Evidence from German wh-questions. Lingua168, 37–56. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.09.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  93. Trotzke, A. & J.-W. Zwart
    2014 The complexity of narrow syntax: Minimalism, representational economy, and simplest Merge. InF. J. Newmeyer & L. B. Preston (eds.), Measuring Grammatical Complexity, 128–147. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Truckenbrodt, H.
    2006 On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in German. Theoretical Linguistics32, 257–306. 10.1515/TL.2006.018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2006.018 [Google Scholar]
  95. Villasante, L.
    1980 Sintaxis de la oración simple. Oñati: Editorial Franciscana.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Waltereit, R.
    2001 Modal particles and their functional equivalents: A speech-act-theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics33, 1391–1417. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00057‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00057-6 [Google Scholar]
  97. Zimmermann, M.
    2008 Discourse particles in the left periphery. InB. Shaer (eds.), Dislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Perspectives, 200–231. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 2011 Discourse particles. InP. Portner, C. Maienborn & K. von Heusinger (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, 2011–2038. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Zuazo, K.
    2014 Euskalkiak. Donostia: Elkar.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.18002.tro
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Basque; discourse particles; German; questions; syntax

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error