Hualde, José Ignacio, and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, ed. (2003) A Grammar of Basque, Mouton de Gruyter Mouton Grammar Library 26.
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-1944.html
Georges Rebuschi, Université de Paris III & CNRS, UMR 7107.
This book, to which several scholars (among whom the editors themselves) have contributed chapters and/or subsections, is intended to provide its readers with a self-contained (and as exhaustive as possible) description of the Basque language, taking into account the three main dimensions of variation: dialectal, stylistic, and diachronic.
In chapter 1, 'Introduction' (J.I. Hualde, 1-14), after general information concerning the language is provided, the aims of this grammar are defined: the contributors ''have been guided by a concern with analytical rigor and attention to fine points of grammar. However, [they] have also avoided all unnecessary formalism. [Henceforth], this book should be perfectly accessible to any linguist regardless of theoretical orientation.'' (p.14)
Chapter 2, 'Phonology,' consists of three sections.
Sec. 2.1, 'Segmental phonology' (J.I. Hualde, 15-65), starts with an inventory of the Gipuzkoan-High Navarrese-standard Basque phonemes, soon compared to those of others dialects: Zuberoan, for instance, has a distinctive feature of aspiration, voiced fricatives, and a nasalized laryngeal aspiration ''always flanked by nasalized vowels'' (p. 25). Next, syllable structure is examined, and the main phonological alternations affecting both consonants and vowels.
Sec. 2.2, 'Accentuation' (J.I. Hualde, 65-72), is dealt with in lesser detail, but the patterns exhibited by four (sub- )dialects, Northern Bizkaian, Western Gipuzkoa (i.e. eastern Bizkaian), ''central'' (real Gipuzkoan) and Zuberoan (the easternmost dialect) are described. The first variety is typologically the most interesting: many words lack inherent, lexical accent (although some declensional suffixes do assign an accent); in this case, it is a phrase which will (in isolation or under focus) will be pitch- accented: there is a rise on the second syllable and a tonal plateau up to the final syllable, which is characterized by a falling contour. But if a word is inherently accented, or inherits an accent from a suffix, it will carry an independent pitch salience (on the same final syllable in the Gernika variety, but on the penultimate in Lekeitio, as indicated in Sec. 2.3). In the central variety, most polysyllabic words are accented on the second syllable, whereas in Zuberoan it is typically the penultimate syllable which is stressed, final accent generally resulting from the contraction of two identical vowels.
Sec. 2.3, 'Intonation' (G. Elordieta, 72-112). This domain must, of course, also be approached from a dialectal viewpoint. Here again, coastal Bizkaian is the most interesting, and is described in detail (sub-variety of Lekeitio, 73-102, with 24 F0 figures). Speakers identify the last accented syllable of the phrase that immediately precedes the verb complex (either the inflected lexical verb, or the participle+auxiliary sequence) as the most prominent one. Words that are not lexically accented (e.g. _semien_ below) cannot be stressed or accented; thus, in answering the question 'Whose house have you seen?' it is impossible to utter (1), and the pattern (2) is forced (capitals indicate the accented vowel):
(1) *Neure semiEn etxia ikusi dot my son-genitive house seen I-have (2) Neure semien etxiA ikusi dot 'I've seen my SON's house'
It is also worthwhile noting that the normal downstep affecting the high-tone plateau of a (focused) phrase may be interrupted by a contrastive/corrective high tone on the corrected word (if it can be accented at all), a phenomenon that does NOT affect replies to questions.
Chapter 3, although entitled 'Morphology' (113-360), in fact covers a much wider domain.
Sec. 3.1, 'The Noun Phrase: nouns, determiners and modifiers; pronouns and names' (L. Trask, 113-170), is placed under morphology probably because morphological case in Basque (just as in, say, Hungarian, but cf. also the Saxon genitive) is normally only marked on the very last word of the phrase. This section satisfies the ''no unnecessary formalism'' constraint mentioned above by providing from the start a ''template'':
and thereby avoids any potential trouble raised by a possible study of its internal organization -- cf. the remark concerning the fact that the partitive affix _-ik_ ''cannot be added to a full NP with a determiner, but only to a determinerless sequence of the type called an N-bar in some theoretical frameworks'' (p. 124).
Sec. 3.2, 'Case and number inflection of noun phrases' (J.I. Hualde, 171-186), provides the lengthy paradigms of the normalized language enacted by the Basque language Academy (Euskaltzaindia), the number of which is justified by lexico-semantic considerations (whether the head N is human or not), and morphophonological adjustments (whether the NP is singular, plural, or 'indefinite', and depending on the phonological type, consonantal or vocalic, of the very last segment, etc.).
Sec. 3.3-4, 'Postpositions' and 'Adverbs' (J.I. Hualde, 187-190, 190-195), describe those typical VP and sentential modifiers, and various word formation devices used to build them.
Sec. 3.5, 'Verbs', has distinct subsections written by different contributors.
Sec. 3.5.1-3, 'Non finite forms', Finite forms', and 'Structural analysis of basic verbal paradigms', by J.I. Hualde (196-242), have explicit titles. Here even more than in the nominal domain, the morphological complexity of the language is particularly conspicuous (74 tables are provided!).
Sec. 3.5.4, 'Tense, aspect and mood' (by B. Oyharçabal, 249- 284), is devoted to the semantic and/or cognitive content of the (synthetic or compound) finite forms whose morphological complexity was described in the preceding Sec. .
Sec. 3.5.5-6, 'Periphrastic constructions' and 'Semi- auxiliary verbs' (J. Ortiz de Urbina, 284-323) do not describe what is usually known among Basque grammarians and linguists as ''periphrastic forms'' (i.e. ''compound tenses'' in a more conservative terminology), but to constructions which involve more than a simple lexical verb and a possible inflected auxiliary. The coding of progressive aspect by _ari_ (as distinct form the imperfective value of synthetic finite forms, and of the imperfective or iterative force of the would-be present participle) is first described; as could be expected, weather verbs display morpho-syntactic irregularity. Next, the root-modal notions of volition and deontic necessity as lexicalized by _nahi_ and _behar_ are described, along with their syntactic properties, and so are the ''modal particles'', among which positive-assertive _ba-_, habitual _ohi_, north-eastern interrogative _-a_ and (common) ''rhetorical'' interrogative _ote_, etc.
The last three sections of chapter 3 (by J.I. Hualde) first deal with two minor categories: 'Conjunctions and connectors' (Sec. 3.5.7, 323-328), and next with word formation ('Derivation', 328-351, and 'Compounds', 351-362), thereby completing Sec. 3.3 and 3.4.
Chapter 4 is entitled 'Syntax'.
Sec. 4.1, 'Valency and argument structure in the Basque verb', by R. Etxepare (363-426), studies the relationship between auxiliary selection, case-frame and valency: for instance, whereas typical bivalent predicates have an ergative and an absolutive argument, reflected as such in the verbal inflection, others take absolutive + dative nominals, whilst yet another group select an ergative and a dative argument. Semantic considerations (lexical aspect, type of predication: stage-level vs. individual level, etc.) are explicitly taken into account.
Sec. 4.2, 'Nominal Predication: copulative sentences and secondary predication' (I. Zabala, 426-448), develops one dimension of the preceding section, and acknowledges the existence of an antipassive construction in Basque, as in (4), (702b) in the text:
(4) ni gutun asko idatzia naiz I.ABS letter a lot.ABS write.PERF.DET am 'I have written a lot of letters'
Sec. 4.3, 'Word order' (J. Ortiz de Urbina, 428-459), has four sections: neutral order, heavy constituents, focalization, and topics.
Sec. 4.4, 'Focalization' (R. Etxepare & J. Ortiz de Urbina, 459-516) develops the contents of 4.3.3 and describes in considerable detail the highly intricate relationship between Wh- questions and focusing, Yes/No questions and verb focusing (distinguishing between focalization on the ''event'', i.e. the content of the lexical item, and ''positive polar emphasis''), subconstituent questions and focusing, embedded focalization, and focalization in negative clauses.
Sec. 4.5. & 4.6. The sections on 'Negation' and 'Exclamatives' (R. Etxepare, 516-564, 564-572) again offer an very detailed description of the relevant data.
Sec. 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9, 'Impersonal clauses' (J. Ortiz de Urbina, 572-591), 'Causatives' (J. Ortiz de Urbina, 592- 607), and 'Reciprocal and reflexive constructions' (X. Artiagoitia, 607-632), provide supplementary information concerning the grammatical domain examined 150 pages earlier (Sec. 4.1).
Sec. 4.10. The very long section on 'Subordination' (632-844) consists of several subsections written by various authors.
In Sec. 4.10.1, X. Artiagoitia describes 'Complementation (noun clauses)' (634-710), as realized first by finite clauses, which he classifies according to the type of subordinators (affixal or not) they take, and second, as realized by non-finite structures.
Sec. 4.10.2, by the same author, tackles 'Adjunct subordination' (710-762), and uses the same main subdivision between finite and non-finite clauses.
Sec. 4.10.3 is devoted to 'Relatives' (B. Oyharçabal, 762-823), and addresses in particular the question of the accessibility of the relativized position in finite relatives, the rarely described question of resumptive pronouns in such clauses, non-finite (adjectival, adverbial and infinitival) relatives, headless relatives, and finally a type of finite relative clauses only found in the northern/eastern dialects, those using the prefixal complementizer _bait-_.
Logically enough, the next section is devoted to 'Comparative constructions' (J.I. Hualde & J. Ortiz de Urbina, 823-844).
Finally, Sec. 4.11, 'Coordination' (I. Amundarain, 844-892) is a section that addresses more explicitly than most the theoretical implications of the data: are they to be dealt with in a purely syntactic manner, or are pragmatic factors sometimes more important (the issue is particular visible in some cases of Gapping)?
Chapter 5 is a collection of texts, with word-for-word and ordinary English translations (J.I. Hualde & J. Ortiz de Urbina, 893-914). All of them have the Basque language as their theme, and the order in which they appear reflects the general highly supple, not to say slightly anarchistic, organization of the volume, since the first and the last one represent the eastern dialects and date respectively back to the 17th and the 16th century, whereas the other three are in the standardized modern language (one by L. Michelena, the author of the fundamental _Fonética histórica vasca_ (1976) and founding father of the current normalization, the other two by K. Zuazo, a specialist of Basque dialectology).
Next follow the 'Sources of examples' (914-921), the (grammatical and linguistic) 'References' (922-934), and finally an 'Index' (935-943).
3.1. There is no denying that this book is the most comprehensive description of Basque ever published, and that it can very generally be used as quite a reliable reference grammar. Importantly, some of its sections (for instance 4.4 and 4.5) provide information that had never been available so far. Moreover, even if the Basque Academy's / Euskaltzaindia's (1985 sq.) grammar _EGLU_ (five volumes of which have been published to this date) may be more detailed in some cases, one should be reminded that (i) it is written in Basque, (ii) it is a prescriptive grammar, and (iii) it concentrates on the written language, i.e. that it does not take into account the fundamental prosodic data to be found here. I must stress the fact that most Bascologists (native speakers inclusive) will find a wealth of facts unnoticed heretofore in this book.
There are, however, some general and specific problems that must be raised.
3.2. Let us start with the examples and their sources, with the references, and the intended readership.
The main problem with the examples lies in the fact that there has clearly been no general policy concerning the establishment of a minimal corpus common to all the non- phonetic / phonological chapters. Admittedly, anything written in Basque by a native speaker is Basque, by definition, but not all texts typically reflect the dialect(s) of their authors or the period when they were written. Thus a selection of a few books representative of at least the four main dialects (those with a literary tradition several centuries old) would certainly have provided a basis for a systematic comparison of the various grammatical domains all along: if some contributors have indeed been careful to notice the micro-parametric variations involved as often as possible, others have done so in a much more offhand manner.
Also troubling is the fact that the reader is sometimes referred to a dictionary -- about which s/he is not told if it is a pure collection of attested examples, or if at least some of them have been coined (Sarasola 1996) -- rather than to the sources that are (most probably) provided therein: in the absence of certain morphological or lexical clues (which the non-Bascologist cannot be expected to possess in any case), how can the reader identify the dialect and period concerned?
Re: the grammatical and linguistic references, the situation does not fare much better. Thus, why was it ''understood'' (so has told me one of the contributors) that only reference to general works was welcome, and that reference to specialized or technical papers should be as scanty as possible? And why is it that no list of the main journals in which expert work on the language is generally published is provided?
In connection with the latter remark, I infer from (i) the fact that every example is first glossed word for word, and even morpheme for morpheme, and (ii) the wealth of morphological tables, that the editors had in mind that part of their readers would be non-specialists. But how are such scholars supposed to benefit from the book as it is? An introductory chapter describing the basic facts in the light of recent, or even not too recent, typological work should certainly have been welcome (and so would have a map helping to spot the town of Lekeitio, or the area in which the High Navarrese subdialect called 'Baztanese' is spoken).
>From this point of view, I would advise the potential beginner to start with the sections on neutral and marked word order (Sec. 4.3.1, 4.3.3) and next to construct for himself/herself the arguments that Basque sentences do have a subject on the basis the data provided in Sec. 4.1.1 and 4.9 (but see below), so as to return to the more fundamental typological question: is Basque an SOV language (Greenberg 1963) or a ''Discourse configurational language'' à la Kiss (ed., 1995)? (Needless to say, the foregoing question could be rephrased in more modern parlance, see below again).
3.3. The main criticism I feel obliged to express concerns the potential readers with a theoretically oriented mind. The deliberate option of ''avoid[ing] all unnecessary formalism'' quoted above in fact results in depriving lots of linguists who are not merely interested in picking up disconnected exotic facts from exploiting the extraordinary wealth of data contained in the volume without considerable effort. I will consider four examples.
3.3.1. First, I was astonished not to find any explicit discussion of whether the notion 'subject' is operative in this language, whose transitive constructions are not even easily classified as being absolutive-ergative, or active- inactive (cf., after Fillmore (1968), Dixon (1994) and Van Vallin & LaPolla (1997) for distinct functional backgrounds, and Levin (1983) and Ortiz de Urbina (1989) for slightly different solutions within the GB framework). Needless to say, more recent work on different languages suggests that there probably are several structural positions corresponding to that traditional notion (cf. Kiss (1996), Ramchand (1996), McCloskey (1997), all published some time before the book under reviw was written), so that a hint at this type of question, with due reference to it in the index, would have been extremely uselful.
3.3.2. On the internal structure of Nominal expressions. As noted above, we are given a ''template'' -- but some Bascologists, among whom Artiagoitia (1998) -- not to mention Artiagoitia (2003), for obvious reasons -- have made considerable headway towards establishing an articulated internal structure of these phrases, with first one functional head (D°), and later two: D° and Number°. Others have suggested the existence of a ''KP'' (''Kase Phrase''), although it is quite probable that the Determiner should always carry a morphological case ending or feature, as illustrated by the contrast between the ungrammatical ex. (5), (2155) in the book, and the grammatical (6):
(5) *mendia eta hirian mountain.DET and city.DET.LOC
(6) mendian eta hirian mountain.DET.LOC and city.DET.LOC 'in the mountain and (in) the city'
Taken at face value, such examples could be regarded as evidence that the absolutive case is not the absence of any case marking, but illustrates the syntactic presence of either a zero morpheme of a Case feature necessarily contained in the Det. Not only would the ungrammaticality of (5) be explained straight away: this sort of approach at least could, in my opinion, also help account for the fact that personal pronouns cannot be modified by ordinary relative clauses (cf. the data contributed in Sec. 4.10.3, against the theoretical background provided e.g. by Dechaine & Wiltschko 2002), and also provide tools to deal with the special syntactic properties of the now extinct ''C-type pronoun'' _haina_ 'every such', to which I happen to have devoted two papers (among which Rebuschi (1998)), and which is merely described as an ordinary correlative pronoun (p. 819).
3.3.3. Consider next the detailed description of the Basque linguist Luis/ Koldo Mitxelena's own reaction to a ''freak'' he had spontaneously produced in a written text he was editing, and nonetheless found acceptable (p. 784, ex. (1893)):
(7) Ez nituen aurkitu [bila not AUX find searching nenbilTZan] argitasunak 1A.SG.walk.PL.PST.COMP explanations 'I didn't find the explanations I was looking for.'
What is astonishing here is to find the unaccusative root -_bil-_ followed by a plural marker, _-(t)z-_ (_ibili_ is a verb that can be used in ''progressive periphrases'', as is explained in Sec. 220.127.116.11), which clearly cross-references the abstract relative operator (or the ''head'' _argitasunak_ itself for the ''Head Raising Analysis'' supporters). (Note by the way that the same type of agreement with _joan_ 'go' was already noted in Lafitte's (1960) grammar, and made public to the community of linguists by Anderson (1976).)
Now, what is the use of introducing and discussing such examples, if they are not examined within a framework that explicitly deals with the loci at which Specifier-head Agreement can take place, independently of whether there has been syntactic movement or base generation/ external merge? Furthermore, how could theoretical linguists become aware that such issues are indirectly dealt with at all?
3.3.4. Last but not least, let's examine the treatment of focalization. As I have already acknowledged, the description of this phenomenon is remarkably detailed. However, a first difficulty is due to the fact that the prosodic description in Sec. 2.3.1, which is nearly 30 pages long, concerns a dialect totally distinct from the one on which the detailed syntactic account of the contraints that govern focusing, and the placement of focused phrases, is based (Sec. 4.4): even the average Bascologist would have enjoyed the ''cooperation'' of the authors (announced in the Introduction, Sec. 1) to extend either to Elordieta examining the prosody of (eastern) Gipuzcoan (in Sec. 4.4, focalization is only marked by capitals), or to Etxepare & Ortiz de Urbina carrying an investigation of finer syntactic details of northern Bizkaian.
But there is more to it. The absence of ''unnecessary formalism'', probably forced onto many of the contributors, results in the almost general absence of bracketing in Sec. 4.4 (exceptions are to be found on pp. 490-491, where they merely help identify indirect questions, as well as in the preceding subsection, devoted to word order, where they suggest an analysis à la Rizzi (1997) for the left periphery of clauses), whence the absence of any discussion concerning the the identification of the position occupied by the focused phrase(s). Basque, like Hungarian, is known for placing both Wh-phrases and focused phrases left- adjacent to the verb, a parallelism underlined in examples (784-791) for instance, but what happens when there are several Wh-Ps or several focused phrases? Today, following Kiss (1993), it is generally assumed (but see Comorovski 1996 for a divergent view) that a typical (though not unique, since one specific pair of entities may be targeted) interpretation of multiple Wh- questions obtains by translating the first Wh-P into a universal quantifier. It follows that the reply -- a list of pairs -- will consist in the association of a contrastive topic with its associated (contrastive) focus -- but, crucially, if the first Wh-P is interpreted as a quantifier, it just cannot sit in the specifier of a Topic(alization) Phrase! Now this approach is compatible with Ortiz de Urbina's statement that ''[m]arked topics to the left are always associated with a focalized element'' to their right (p. 456), but is hardly compatible with Etxepare and (the same) Ortiz de Urbina's analysis of sentences like (8) (their (796)) as exhibiting ''two emphasized constituents'' (unless ''emphasized'' means something different from ''focalized'', but we are not told so) -- cf. also the Lekeitio Basque examples provided in the question / answer pair on p. 85, which are characterized as ''cases of multiple foci''.
(8) KOTXEA ETXEAN utzi nuen atzo car at.home leave AUX yesterday (ez giltza bulegoan). not key office.the.in 'I left THE CAR AT HOME yesterday, not the key in the office.'
>From this point of view, it would also have been interesting to find hints at the possible (in)applicability of Rizzi's (1997) important work concerning the left periphery of clauses, already alluded to above, since it is not obvious that all Wh-Ps occupy the same position, or that Rizzi's FP's specifier is indistinct from that of a quantifier phrase. Moreover, one might wonder whether there is actual multiple _syntactic_ focalization in such cases (see Comorovski, op. cit., on this), or whether only the first focused phrase (or Wh-P) moves towards the left periphery: the authors correctly observe [p. 498] that in case of multiple Wh- questions, only the word order observed in pragmatically _unmarked_ sentences (subject < indirect object < direct object < verb) occurs (the case of second Wh-Ps as sentence tails, illustrated on p. 499, could thus be analysed as the failure of the verb+auxiliary complex to raise to C° or whatever other functional head can be assumed in the left periphery of the clause).
For reasons of space, I will not discuss finer points of Basque grammar on which I disagree: for instance, is _-zki-_ an allomorph of the absolutive plural marker in a ditransitive verb when a dative suffix follows, as indicated in table 82 for _di-zki-ogu_ 'we have them to him/her' (p. 211, where the word is segmented as noted here), when (i) _-z-_ is indubitably a plural agreement morpheme in itself, and (ii) _-ki-_ clearly functions as a dative flag without any present plural morpheme, as in examples provided on pp. 207, 209 and 235? Is there really something as specific as ''ergative displacement'' in the past and irrealis tenses (see Rebuschi 1999 on this topic as well as on _-z+ki-_)? Are all headless relative clauses built on the same pattern, with an invisible nominal head syntactically present? Given the size and coverage of the book, it would necessarily take us too far away, and it is only normal that people should disagree from time to time.
On the contrary, I wish to repeat that this book is by far the best description of Basque currently available: linguists who wish to have more than a vague idea of the way Basque works will find plenty of data that are most unexpected, especially if their cross-linguistic culture is basically ''western Indo-European'' (probably excluding the Celtic languages...).
My only basic regret, then, is that the contributors should have been so strongly advised to pay as little heed as possible to current linguistic theorizing and disputes (in spite of the research they are independently engaged in!). Admittedly, linguistic theories are not unified, and change constantly. But is that reason good enough to systematically ignore the progress that has been made in the last 30 years (apart from phonetic techniques), and/or to pretend that the average linguist has never heard of X- bar theory (whether he accepts it or not being quite a different matter)? Does it make the book any easier to read? In other words, can we expect the general and/or theoretical linguist to read the 940 pages of the book carefully and then spend more time trying to identify, not to mention solving, some of the (many) puzzles that Basque grammar raises, when it would have been so easy to make explicit allusions to the conceptual problems involved? And will it render it easier to read in ten years' time? Here again, individual opinions are, of course, necessarily subjective and divergent, but I will have stated mine clearly.
Anderson, S. 1967. 'On the Notion of Subject in Ergative languages'. In C.N. Li (ed.), _Subject and Topic_ (New York: Academic Press), 1-23.
Artiagoitia, X. 1998. 'Determinatzaile sintagmaren hipotesia euskal gramatikan' [=The DP hypothesis in Basque grammar]. _Uztaro_ 27, 33-61 [San Sebastian].
Artiagoitia, X. 2002. 'The functional structure of the Basque noun phrase'. In X. Artiagoitia et al. (eds.), _Erramu Boneta: Festschrift for Rudolf P. G. de Rijk_ (San- Sebastián/Donostia & Vitoria/Gasteiz: Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa & Univer-sidad del País Vasco, Supplements of ASJU 44), 73-90.
Comorovski, I. 1996. _Interrogative Phrases and the Syntax-Semantics Interface_. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Euskaltzaindia [Basque Academy]. 1985-1999. _Euskal Gramatika: Lehen urratsak_ [=Basque grammar: First steps]. Pamplona/Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia (5 vols.)
Fillmore, C. 1968. 'The Case for Case'. In E. Bach & R. Harms (eds.), _Universals in Linguistic Theory_ (New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston), 1-88.
Greenberg, J. 1963. 'Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the order of Meaningful Elements'. In J. Greenberg (ed.), _Universals of Language_ (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press), 58-90.
Kiss, K. E. 1993. 'Wh-Movement and Specificity'. _Natural Language and Linguistic Theory_ 11.1, 85-120.
Kiss, K. E. (ed). 1995. _Discourse Configurational Languages_. Oxford: OUP.
Kiss, K. E. 1996. 'Two Subject Positions in English'. _The Linguistic Review_ 13, 119-142.
Lafitte, P. 1960 . _Grammaire basque (navarro- labourdin littéraire)_. Bayonne: Amis du Musée basque & Ikas.
Levin, B. 1983. _On the Nature of Ergativity_. Doctoral dissertation: MIT.
McCloskey, J. 1997. Subjecthood and Subject Positions'. In L. Haegeman (ed.), _Elements of Grammar; Handbook of Generative Grammar_ (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 197-235.
Michelena, L. 1976. _Fonética histórica vasca_. San Sebastian: Publicaciones del Seminario Julio de Urquijo.
Ortiz de Urbina, J. 1989. _Parameters in the Grammar of Basque_. Dordrecht: Foris.
Ramchand, G.C. 1996. 'Two Subject Positions in Scottish Gaelic: The syntax-semantics interface'. _Natural Language Semantics_ 4.2, 165-191.
Rebuschi, G. 1998. 'Nouvelles remarques sur le pronom _haina_'. _Lapurdum_ 3, 53-75 [Bayonne, CNRS].
Rebuschi, G. 1999. 'Le complexe verbal basque: une approche ''universaliste'''. _Lapurdum_ 4, 199-222.
Rizzi, L. 1997. 'The Fine structure of the Left Periphery'. In L. Haegeman (ed.), _Elements of Grammar; Handbook of Generative Grammar_ (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 281-337.
Sarasola, I. 1996. _Euskal Histegia_. San Sebastian: Kutxa. [The publishers are indicated as such in the book's references, but I fear their name is incomplete].
Van Valin, R.D., & R.J. LaPolla. 1997. _Syntax; Structure, meaning and function_. Cambridge: CUP.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER:
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Georges Rebuschi is professor of general linguistics at the Sorbonne Nouvelle (Univ. de Paris III). He was appointed honorary member of Euskaltzaindia (the Basque Academy) in 2002. His main interests are syntactic parametrization, and the syntax/semantics interface. He published a collection of papers devoted to Basque linguistics in 1997, and co- edited a book on the _Grammar of Focus_ with Benjamins in 1999. He is currently working on Basque diachronic syntax (especially on quantification, relativization, and correlative sentences), on the syntactic typology of left-dislocated clauses, and on the general questions raised by "conjunctions" and their semantic (i.e. logical, and not so logical) counterparts.