|
Doktore tesi honen ikergai nagusia euskararen ergatibotasuna da. Egileak Egitasmo Minimalista (Chomsky 1993) hartzen du abiapuntutzat eta hiru eremu enpiriko arakatzen ditu: subjektuen izaera, datibo kasua eta Ergatibotasun Erdibitua.
Kasu sistema ergatiboa, kasu sistema nominatibo/akusatiboa ez bezalakoa da, predikatu iragankor eta iragangaitzeko subjektuak kasu ezberdinekin markatzen baititu: iragankorreko subjektuak ergatibo kasuarekin eta iragangaitzekoak absolutibo kasuarekin, osagarriak bezalaxe. Bobaljik (1993) eta Lakari (1993) jarraituz, egileak proposatzen du ergatiboa iragankorreko subjektuen kasua dela (baina ikus Murasugi 1992 beste proposamen baterako).
Egitasmo teoriko honetan, egiturazko kasua Komunztadura buruen espezifikatzaile gunean erkatzen da. Egiturazko irizpide hau ikusi egiten da euskaraz ergatibo eta absolutibo komunztadura agerikoa baita. Bada, Inflexioak datiboekiko komunztadura ere erakusten duenez, euskal datiboa egiturazko kasutzat hartzen du egileak (cf. Cheng & Demirdache 1993, López & Austin 1995). Hipotesi honek Chomskyren (1993) bidezidor gurutzatuen arazoa handitzen du eratorpenean hirugarren IS-mugimenduaren bidezidorra gaineratuz.
Nolanahi ere den, egileak defendatutako proposamenean, izatez arazorik ez dago. Izan ere, absolutibo kasua zilegiztatzen duen buru funtzionala egituran beherago dago subjektuaren jatorrizko gunea baino, i.e. absolutiboa AS-azalen arteko espezifikatzaile funtzional batean erkatzen da. Hipotesi hau independenteki formulatu da Collins & Thrainssonen (1993) lanean.
Honetaz gain, euskarak Ergatibotasun Erdibituaren (Dixon 1994) bi erakusgarri ditu: bietatik bat predikatuaren izaera semantikoan oinarriturik dago eta bestea ISen izaera semantikoan.
Predikatuaren izaera semantikoan oinarrituriko erdibiketa epifenomenotzat jotzen da: predikatu inergatiboak itxuraz baino ez dira salbuespen, Egitura Lexiko Erlaziozkoan (Hale & Keyser 1993) iragankorrak direla uste bada. Osagarria hiztegian inkorporatzen bada, predikatuak iragangaitza balitz bezala jokatzen du sintaxian eta bere argumentu sintaktiko bakarrak absolutibo kasua jasotzen du. Aldiz, osagarria hiztegian inkorporatzen ez bada, orduan sintaxian ikusgarria da (gerora inkorporatuko da Forma Logikoan), eta predikatuak iragankorki jokatzen du, ergatibo kasua ezarriz.
Erdibiketa uztartu vs. askeak (Dixon 1994) ISen izaera semantikoekin du zerikusia. Iraganean, lehen eta bigarren pertsonako subjektu ergatibodunek absolutibo komunztadura aurrizkia erakusten du aditz laguntzailean, osagarria hirugarren pertsonakoa bada. Konfigurazio hauei dagokienez, egileak proposatzen du iragankorreko subjektuak ez dituela bere tasunak erkatzen bide kanonikoan. Oso bestela, subjektua absolutibo komunztadura gunera mugitzen da batetik eta bestetik, ergatibo kasu gunera. Bestalde, absolutibo argumentuak bere kasua baino ez du erkatzen (pertsona komunztadura tasunik ez, ordea). Egileak I-tasunen erkabide erdibitua deritza honi.
Structural case checking in Basque
The topic of this dissertation is the ergativity in Basque. The author adopts the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1993) and explores three empirical domains: the nature of subjects, the dative case and the so-called Split Ergativity.
The ergative case system is different from the more familiar nominative/accusative system in that it exhibits different markings of transitive and intransitive subjects: transitive subjects are marked for the ergative case and intransitive subjects for the absolutive case, like transitive objects. Following Bobaljik (1993) and Laka (1993) (but see Murasugi 1992 for a different proposal), the author proposes that the ergative is indeed the case of transitive subjects in Basque.
In the framework assumed, structural cases are checked in the specifier of Agreement heads. This structural requirement is visible in Basque as an overt agreement for ergative and absolutive. Since the Inflection also agrees with datives, Basque dative is analyzed as a structural case (cf. Cheng & Demirdache 1993, López & Austin 1995). This increases Chomsky¿s (1993) crossing paths problem by adding a third A-movement path.
In the proposal defended by the author, this problem does not arise. The author proposes that the functional head licensing absolutive is situated lower down in the structure than the position where the subject is base-generated, i.e. the absolutive is checked in a functional specifier between VP-shells. This proposal has also been independently formulated by Collins & Thrainsson (1993).
Apart from the general pattern sketched above, Basque shows a phenomenon known as the Split Ergativity (Dixon 1994). Basque has two kinds of Split Ergativity: one is based on the semantic nature of the predicate and the other one on the semantic nature of NP arguments. The split based on predicate types is analyzed as ephiphenomenal: the apparently exceptional behavior of unergative predicates is believed to proceed from an underlyingly transitive representation in the Lexical Relational Structure (Hale & Keyser 1993). If the object is incorporated in the lexicon, the predicate behaves as an intransitive in syntax and its only syntactic argument is assigned absolutive case. If the object does not incorporate in the lexicon, it is visible in syntax (incorporating at Logical Form), and the predicate behaves as a transitive licensing ergative case.
Bound vs. free split (Dixon 1994) concerns the semantic nature of NP arguments. In the past tense, first and second person subjects carrying ergative agree with an absolutive prefix in the auxiliary, if the object is a third person. Concerning these configurations, the author proposes that the transitive subject does not check its features in the canonical way. Instead, it moves towards an absolutive agreement position and to an ergative case position. On the other hand, the absolutive argument only checks its case, but not agreement. This mechanism is called by the author, split checking of nominal-features.
