# Change in root restrictions on Basque allocutivity

Bill Haddican, Irantzu Epelde, Urtzi Etxeberria, Ricardo Etxepare

► To cite this version:

Bill Haddican, Irantzu Epelde, Urtzi Etxeberria, Ricardo Etxepare. Change in root restrictions on Basque allocutivity. Journal of Historical Syntax, 2025, Proceedings of the 23rd Diachronic Generative Syntax (DiGS) Conference, 9 (2/10), 10.18148/hs/2025.v9i2-10.216. hal-04380269

HAL Id: hal-04380269

https://hal.science/hal-04380269v1

Submitted on 8 Jan 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
# CHANGE IN ROOT RESTRICTIONS ON BASQUE ALLOCUTIVITY*

BILL HADDICAN

CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

IRANTZU EPELDE, URTZI

ETXEBERRIA, RICARDO

ETXEPARE

CNRS-IKER

## ABSTRACT

This paper examines variation and change in embedding restrictions on Basque allocutive morphemes—person clitics marking non-thematic addressees. Recent work has described cross-speaker variation in whether allocutive morphemes are restricted to root clauses or may appear in embeddings. This paper reports on a recent survey that suggests change in progress toward loss of the root restriction. The results, moreover, indicate no cross-speaker correlation in acceptance of embedded vocatives with acceptance or use of embedded allocutives. We take the different cross-speaker distribution of allocutive morphemes and vocatives to reflect partially different representations for these forms, with vocative morphemes bearing richer functional structure and different licensing conditions.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

This article focuses on change in the syntax of Basque allocutive marking. We illustrate this phenomenon in (1), where the -n and -k morphemes on the auxiliary mark, respectively, agreement with a female or male informal interlocutor that is not an event participant.

(1) *Retegik irabazi di-n/k.*
Retegi.ERG won AUX-2SG.FAM.FEM/MASC
'Retegi has won.'

Following work by Speas & Tenny (2003) and Miyagawa (2013, 2022), the

<footnote>* We are grateful to ...</footnote>
volume of formal descriptions of allocutive marking and related phenomena
has expanded rapidly in recent years. Notable in this work is the coverage of
varieties not previously described as having allocutive marking including Ko-
rean (Pak 2017, Kim 2019, Portner, Pak & Zanuttini 2019), Galician (Huido-
bro 2022), Punjabi (Kaur & Yamada 2019, Kaur 2020), Magahi (Alok 2020,
2021, Alok & Baker 2018), and Tamil (Sundaresan 2018, McFadden 2020).
From these recent descriptions, two theoretical issues have emerged, which
have not yet received extensive discussion in the formal literature. One emer-
gent challenge is to explain what conditions the availability of allocutive mor-
phemes in embedded domains. Recent results suggest that allocutive lan-
guages fall into one of two classes with respect to embedding restrictions—
those in which allocutive morphemes are strictly limited to root domains and
those in which they are available in embedded contexts as well. The formal
nature of this cross-linguistic difference is discussed by Alok & Haddican
(2022) and Alok (2021) and we consider some implications of this here. A
second challenge is to understand how allocutive morphemes interact with
other kinds of syntactic phenomena commonly taken to motivate the pres-
ence of addressee features high in the clausal sequence. Recent work by Alok
& Baker (2018) and McFadden (2020) describes the interaction of allocutive
marking with person indexical shift which the authors take to reflect a com-
mon syntactic locus for the two phenomena. Similarly, Slocum (2016), Port-
ner et al. (2019), Akkuş & Hill (2021) and Haddican & Etxeberria (2022) pro-
pose that allocutivity and vocative expressions are introduced in the same
Addressee-related projection.

The goal of this article is to address aspects of these two sets of issues
using data from a recent judgment and translation task survey with 421 self-
reported Basque allocutive users. Basque is particularly useful as a laboratory
variety for probing the above two sets of issues since previous work has noted
that Basque dialects vary in whether allocutive morphemes may be embed-
ded (Hualde 2003, Azkue Ibarbia 1998, Haddican & Etxeberria 2022), and be-
cause several properties of allocutive morphemes and vocative expressions in
Basque provide a particularly strong case for positing a partially unified syn-
tactic account of these forms (Haddican & Etxeberria 2022). In particular,
the results that we will present in this paper have the following three main
implications.

i. Our results from both judgment and translation task data support pre-
vious reports based on uncontrolled data of cross-speaker variation
between speakers with allocutive morphemes only in root contexts
and those with allocutive morphology in embedded domains as well.
For both sets of results, moreover, these embedding restrictions corre-
late with participant age with younger speakers favoring innovative
embedded allocutive forms.

ii. The results also fail to support Haddican & Etxeberria's (2022) claim that embedded allocutivity is insensitive to embedding type. Specifically, the translation task results suggest that embedded allocutivity is favored in *if*-clauses and relative clauses vis-a-vis complement clauses. Extending an analysis by Alok & Haddican (2022), we take this to reflect variation across individuals in the way that the head responsible for introducing allocutive clitics is licensed.

iii. The results fail to support a claim by Haddican & Etxeberria (2022), based on uncontrolled data from a smaller set of consultants, that acceptance of embedded allocutivity correlates with acceptance of vocative expressions in embedded domains. Indeed, unlike in the case of embedded allocutivity, there is no evidence of change in progress in the distribution of embedded vocatives. We propose that the different distributions of vocatives and allocutives reflects in part the fact that the former have a richer functional structure (Hill 2013, Slocum 2016). We take this additional structure to including features bound locally by an utterance-anchoring morpheme.

Our discussion is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the main object of study—variable root-sensitivity of Basque allocutive morphemes. Section 3 discusses some reasons for positing a partially unified approach to allocutive morphemes and vocative expressions in Basque. Section 4 describes the data set used and Section 5 presents the results. Section 6 discusses implications of the results for the syntax of root-restrictions in allocutive morphology and for the relationship between vocatives and allocutives. Section 7 briefly concludes.

## 2 VARIABLE ROOT-SENSITIVITY OF BASQUE ALLOCUTIVITY

In Basque, gender marking on person clitics within the auxiliary applies only with familiar addressees. In (2a), the *-a/-na* morphemes on the auxiliary mark agreement with a familiar addressee—masculine and feminine, respectively. No other person clitics—including those for non-familiar addressees—bear gender marking. In the same dialects, and in the same sociolinguistic contexts in which allocutive agreement applies, the same forms used to mark non-thematic addressees also mark thematic addressees as in (2b).
(2) a. Jon ikus-i d-i-a/-na-t.
Jon see-PERF EXPL-ROOT-2SG.FAM.MASC/FEM-1SG.ERG
'I've seen John.' [Non-thematic addressees]

b. Hi-ri ema-n di-a/na-t.
2SG.FAM-DAT give-PERF AUX-2SG.FAM.MASC/FEM-1SG.ERG
'I have given it to you.' [Thematic addressee]

The morphemes -a/-na in (2) are elsewhere forms. Allomorphs -k/n for masculine and feminine interlocutors, respectively, appear when the morpheme is left-adjacent to a morphological word boundary. As illustrated in (3), this allomorphy condition holds for both thematic and non-thematic addressees.

(3) a. Jon etorr-i d-u-k/-n.
Jon come-PERF EXPL-ROOT-2SG.FAM.MASC/FEM
'John has come.' [Non-thematic addressees]

b. Hi-k egi-n du-k/-n.
2SG.FAM-ERG do-PERF AUX-2SG.FAM.MASC/FEM
'You have done it.' [Thematic addressee]

Much recent formal work has cited Oyharçabal's (1993) influential analysis of Zuberoan, where allocutivity is restricted to root declaratives. (4a,b), from Oyharçabal (1993), show that allocutive morphemes in Zuberoan are unavailable in complement clauses and in root questions.

(4) a. [Manex joan-en *du-a-la/de-la] uste duk.
Manex go-FUT AUX-2SG.FAM.MASC-Q/AUX-COMP think AUX
'You think Manex will go.'

b. Lan egi-ten *di-n-a/duia hire lagunak?
work do-IMPERF AUX-2SG.FAM.MASC-Q/AUX.Q your friend.ERG
'Does your friend work?'

Importantly, not all Basque dialects share this set of restrictions. In particular, conservative speakers of most southern and western varieties allow allocutive marking in root questions, but not in non-root domains. (See map in Figure 1).

Less well discussed outside of the Basque specialist literature is that many southern dialects freely permit embedded allocutives, particularly among younger speakers (Azkue 1923, Azkue Ibarbia 1998, Hualde, Oyharçabal & Ortiz de Urbina 2003, Aurrekoetxea 1994, Euskaltzaindia 2008, Haddican & Etxeberria 2022). For example, (5), from Azkue Ibarbia (1998), shows allocutive marking in both root and embedded clauses. As far as we are aware, for all such innovative speakers, if allocutive marking appears in an embedded clause,
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1** Zuberoan dialects within the Basque-speaking region (Zuazo 2008).</figcaption></figure>

it must appear in all finite domains within the utterance, including the root clause. That is, what seems to be unattested is a pattern in which allocutive marking appears in embedded domains but not roots or in which allocutive marking appears in one finite embedded clause but not others.

(5) [Peninsula Iberica ikusi di-α-t-ela] iruitu
Peninsula Iberian see AUX-2SG.FAM.MASC-1.ERG-COMP seem
zaite-k.
AUX-2SG.FAM.MASC
'I thought I saw the Iberian Peninsula.'
(Adapted from Azkue Ibarbia (1998))

A question immediately raised by the innovative availability of (5) is whether
allocutive morphemes in embedded domains are sensitive to embedding type,
as described for other “embedded root” phenomena including V2 in Scan-
dinavian (Julien 2009, Wiklund, Bentzen, Hrafnbjargarson & Hróarsdóttir
2009, Bentzen 2014) or English negative inversion (Emonds 1969, Hooper &
Thompson 1973).
Based on uncontrolled results from a small sample of speakers from Or-
dizia and surrounding areas (Central Basque areas, marked in red in Figure
1), Haddican & Etxeberria (2022) find no evidence that embedded allocutiv-
ity availability is sensitive to embedding type. In particular, their consultants
reported no difference in the availability of allocutive morphemes across con-
texts including embedded declaratives, factives, temporal adjuncts and em-
bedded yes/no questions, as in (6)-(8).

(6) **Factives**

Jonek [*ba-zetorre-(%k)-ela*] ahaztu d-i-k.
Jon EPEN-come-2SG.FAM.MASC-C forget AUX-2SG.FAM.MASC
‘Jon has forgotten that he/she/it is coming.’

(7) Temporal clauses

[Jon zetorre-(%k)-en]-ean ikusi-ko di-a-t.
Jon come-2SG.FAM.MASC-C.Q-in see-FUT AUX-2SG.FAM.MASC-1SG
‘When John comes, I will see him.’

(8) Embedded yes/no questions

Ez zaki-a-t [zetorre-(%k)-en] ala ez.
NEG know-2SG.FAM.MASC-1.ERG COME-2SG.FAM.MASC-C OR NEG
‘I don’t know if he’s coming or not.’

Further evidence that allocutive clitics among innovative users are possi-
ble in true embeddings comes from two additional root-clause tests specific to
Basque. The first is “ba-support”, a second-position repair operation that ap-
plies only in true root contexts Ortiz de Urbina (1989), Elordieta & Haddican
(2018). As described in detail in Ortiz de Urbina (1989), in contexts where
repair is not needed—including in true embeddings—ba-support cannot ap-
ply. As shown in (9), allocutive morphemes are available in such embedded
contexts where ba-insertion is blocked.

(9) Ba-support

[*ba-*]zetorre-(%k)-en] ekaitza.
ba-come-2SG.FAM.MASC-C storm.DEF
‘The storm that is coming.’

A second such test is predicate fronting in negative contexts (Laka 1990,
Artiagoitia 2003, Etxepare 2003, Elordieta & Haddican 2018). Laka (1990)
observes that V-Neg-Aux orders, which are never possible root contexts, are
indeed so in true embeddings including relative clauses and manner adjuncts.
As shown in (10), innovative embedded allocutive users accept embedded
allocutive morphemes in contexts admitting V-Neg-Aux orders.
(10) VP-fronting
[Ukatuko ez di(%a)-te-en]-ez, Erreala hobea duk.
deny.FUT NEG AUX-2SG.FAM.MASC-PL.ERG-C-as Real better COP
'As they won't deny, Real are better.'

### 3 ALLOCUTIVES AND VOCATIVES

As discussed briefly in the introduction, some recent work has suggested a syntactic relationship between allocutivity and vocative expressions, such as the initial DP in (11) (Slocum 2016, Portner et al. 2019, Akkuş & Hill 2021, Haddican & Etxeberria 2022).

(11) My friend, you need to wear a mask.

Specifically, this literature has noted three main similarities between these expressions that suggest a unified syntactic approach. First, both vocatives and allocutives refer to addressees, and express not-at-issue meaning (Slocum 2016, Portner et al. 2019, Haddican & Etxeberria 2022). Second, several kinds of evidence and especially word order facts have led scholars of both phenomena to posit a first-merged position for these morphemes high in the functional sequence of the clause (Hill 2007, 2013, Portner et al. 2019). Third and finally, like allocutive morphemes in certain allocutive varieties at least, vocative expressions are often taken to be available only in root contexts (Hill 2007, 2013, Slocum 2016).

In the case of Basque, specifically, Haddican & Etxeberria (2022) note that two additional sets of facts motivate a syntactic relationship between allocutive markers and vocative expressions. The first of these is that some conservative have vocative pronouns, that, like allocutive morphemes agree in gender with the addressee only for familiar interlocutors.

(12) Txo/ño# berandu du-k/n.
VOC.MASC/VOC.FEM late AUX-2SG.FAM.MASC/FEM
'Yo, it's late.'

These vocatives pronouns and allocutive clitics are the only two contexts in which grammatical gender is marked in Basque. The two forms, moreover, are identical in sociolinguistic distribution for relevant lects. That is, the same interlocutors and speech contexts favoring the use the forms in (12), also favor allocutive clitics. Moreover, in common meta-linguistic parlance, the use of allocutive morphemes is referred to by these vocative expressions. That is, using allocutive clitics with a male interlocutor is referred to as *to-ka* ('*to*-doing') and with a female interlocutor as *no-ka* ('*no*-doing').
A second kind of evidence from Basque specifically suggesting a rep-
resentational relationship between vocative expressions and allocutive mor-
phemes comes from patterns of clitic doubling. A well described property
of person clitics on the finite auxiliary in Basque is that they can nearly al-
ways co-occur with an overt DP associate (Ortiz de Urbina 1989, Laka 1990,
1993, Arregi & Nevins 2012). In (13), for example the first person clitic on
the auxiliary is obligatory but the free pronoun *ni* is “optional” in the sense
that it can be omitted in determined pragmatic contexts, but may freely ap-
pear. The first person pronoun-clitic combination in (13) corresponds to an
absolutive-marked argument but the same optionality in doubling applies
to ergative and dative person arguments as well. A question that arises in
this context is whether allocutive clitics may also have a free DP associate or
whether they are exceptional among person clitics in disallowing doubling.
The latter case would be particularly striking since, as described above, alloc-
utive clitics behave identically to thematic clitics in terms of exponence and
allomorphy rules. As shown in (13), the allocutive clitic can appear with
a second-person expression, but this is interpreted as a direct address, i.e.
with a non-participant role, like the gender and familiarity-matched allocu-
tive clitic.

(13) (*Txo*), (*ni*) *etorr-i* *na-u-k*.
2SG.FAM.MASC 1SG see-PERF 1SG-ROOT-2SG.FAM.MASC
‘I have come.’

These considerations, therefore, suggest a more specific characterization
of the relationship between vocative constituents and allocutive clitics, namely
that the relation between them is parallel to that between thematic clitics and
their DP associates. Building on similar proposals in Slocum (2016) and
Portner et al. (2019), Haddican & Etxeberria (2022) take vocatives to be in-
troduced in the same projection, AddrP. Specifically, Haddican & Etxeberria
(2022) take the clitic and DP associate to be introduced in a big DP structure
of category KP, as in (14) (Uriagereka 1995, Nevins 2011, Haddican 2018).
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Haddican & Etxeberria (2022) propose that the cross-lectal difference in the availability of embedded allocutivity reflects whether the Addr head that introduces the Addressee-related KP is licensed in embedded domains. In conservative dialects, this head is only licensed in the local domain of an utterance anchoring morpheme present only in true root contexts. In the grammar of innovative speakers this restriction on Addr is absent. A prediction of this approach, as Haddican & Etxeberria (2022) note, is that the availability of embedded allocutivity should correlate across speakers with the availability of embedded vocative expressions, if, indeed the two constituents are introduced in the same KP structure. In the data set they report on based on a limited sample of Ordizia-area speakers, this prediction is in fact borne out.

We take the Addr head, in whose projection this KP is introduced to be a species of applicative morpheme following Huidobro's (2022) analysis of Galician.<fnref n="1" /> In the case of Galician, the motivation for taking allocutive clitics to be applicative-like is particularly clear since allocutive clitics are near identical to thematic datives in Galician in terms of exponence, portmanteau clitic formation rules and proclisis/enclisis constraints Álvarez Blanco (1997), Carbón Riobóo (1995), Huidobro (2022), Alok & Haddican (2022)

(15) *Non che me dá pena ningunha.*
no 2sg.fam 1sg give sorrow any
'It doesn't make me feel bad at all.'

[Galician]
(Álvarez Blanco 1997: 38)

In Basque, the comparison between thematic dative clitics and allocutive clitics is somewhat more opaque because it is not clear that exponence of these morphemes is ever directly conditioned by case. There is, however, one

<footnote n="1">1 Reminisced, here, are proposals by Miyagawa (2012) and Haegeman & Hill (2013) that take speech act projections to have a shell structure parallel to verbal shells and in which the HEARER role is parallel to the indirect object in thematic structure.</footnote>
telling distributional parallel between thematic dative morphemes and alloc-
utive clitics, namely that these are the only two morphemes that trigger a *u→i*
root vowel change on transitive auxiliaries (Rebuschi 1981, 1984). (16a), for
example shows a monotransitive auxiliary with a *u*-root. (16b) shows that the
addition of an allocutive clitic triggers an *i* root vowel on the auxiliary, as does
the addition of a thematic dative as in (16c). Following Haddican & Etxeber-
ria (2022) and Alok & Haddican (2022), we therefore take the Addr head of
(14) to be an applicative morpheme that introduces a DP/KP interpreted not
as an event participant, but rather as a speech-act participant.

(16) a. Egin-go *d-u-t*.
    do-IRR EXPL-ROOT-1SG.ERG
    ‘I’m going to do it.’
    [transitive non-allocutive]

b. Egin-go *d-i-a-t*.
do-IRR EXPL-ROOT-2SG.FAM.ERG-1SG.ERG
'I'm going to do it.'
[transitive allocutive]

c. Eman-go *d-i-a-t*.
give-IRR EXPL-ROOT-3SG.DAT-1SG.ERG
'I'm going to give it to you.'
[ditransitive]

Given, then, evidence of innovative embedded allocutive forms reported
in Aurrekoetxea (1994), Azkue Ibarbia (1998), Euskaltzaindia (2008) and
Haddican & Etxeberria (2022), the preceding discussion of the relationship
between allocutive morphemes and vocative expressions leads to three spe-
cific predictions about cross-speaker variation in the distribution of these forms,
which have not been addressed with controlled data.

(17) *Summary of predictions.*

i. Given reports that embedded allocutivity is favored by younger speakers (Azkue Ibarbia 1998, Hualde et al. 2003), we expect an age effect in the distribution of these forms in both production and judgment data.

ii. If, as Haddican & Etxeberria (2022) claim, embedded allocu-
tivity is insensitive to embedding type, we expect no variation
across different embedding types.

iii. If, as Haddican & Etxeberria (2022) propose, vocatives and al-
locutives are licensed in the same contexts, the availability of
embedded vocatives and embedded allocutives should correlate
across participants.

In the next section, we describe a judgment and production study in-
tended to address these predictions.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2** Bizkaian (L) and Gipuzkoan (R) dialects within Basque-speaking region (Zuazo 2008).</figcaption></figure>

# 4 A JUDGMENT AND PRODUCTION STUDY

Participants were 421 self-reported allocutive users, recruited via Twitter and email. The distribution of participants' self-reported genders were 3 non-binary, 156 women, 261 men and 1 no response. The relatively large number of responses by participants self-identifying as men may reflect the fact that allocutivity in most southern communities is used more often by men than women and is in fact more often acquired by boys than girls Echeverría (2003). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 71 (M=41.3), and were mainly from western Gipuzkoan & Bizkaian dialect areas, which have the largest populations of allocutive users. (See Figure 2.)

Data were gathered in 2020 and 2021 via an online survey hosted on Ibex Farm Drummond (2013) and PCIbex Farm (Zehr & Schwarz 2018). Participants completed three tasks during the procedure. The first was a judgment task, which consisted of two simple experiments with vocative/allocutive morphemes in root vs. embedded contexts, in matched lexicalizations. Examples of these sentence types are given in (18) and (19).
(18) **Example lexicalization, vocative comparison**

a. **Motel**, ikusiko dugu [ea astelehenean argazkiak bidaliko dituzten].
Dude, see.FUT AUX if on.Monday photos send.FUT AUX
‘Dude, we’ll see if they’ll send the photos on Monday.’ [Root]

b. Ikusiko dugu [ea astelehenean, **motel**, argazkiak bidaliko dituzten].
[Embedded]

(19) Example lexicalization, allocutive comparison

a. Jonek pentsatzen di-**k** [etorriko d-ela].
Jon think AUX-2SG.FAM.MASC come.FUT AUX-C
‘Jon thinks he’ll come.’
[Root]

b. Jonek pentsatzen di-**k** [etorriko du-**k**-ela].
[Embedded]

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3** Example trial for the lexicalization in (18b).</figcaption></figure>

Participants were assigned to one of two counterbalanced lists with two unique lexicalizations for each of these four conditions (= eight experimental items/participant). To these materials were interleaved eight fillers/participant, half good and half bad. In each trial, participants were asked to judge a stimulus sentence at the top of the screen using a 7-point scale arranged horizontally and increasing from left to right, with continuum endpoints labeled *Gaizki* 'bad' and *Ondo* 'good'. Participants were told they could make their selection by clicking on one of the numbers or using their keyboards. An example trial from the judgment subdesign is given in 3.

The second component of the survey was a Spanish-to-Basque translation task, based on Azkue Ibarbia’s (1998) study of allocutive use in Zumaia. The Spanish stimulus sentences were chosen to elicit a range of different embedding types in responses including, declaratives under verbs of saying, restrictive relative clauses, embedded *wh*- and *yes/no*-questions, *because*-clauses and temporal adjunct clauses. Spanish items were also designed to bias pro-
duction of different kinds of auxiliary forms by tense marking and by person clitic combination. A list of the Spanish items and their English translations are given in the appendix. An example trial for the translation subdesign is provided in 4. In each trial, participants were asked, “How would you say the following sentence in your *everyday Basque*—that is in your local dialect. (Speaking with a female friend or a male friend—your choice.)” The sentence to translate appeared below these instructions above the response field.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4** Example trial for the translation task.</figcaption></figure>

The survey concluded with a set of demographic questions focused on participant age, gender, hometown and context of acquisition. Specifically, each participant was asked if they used allocutive forms with: (i) their parents; (ii) their friend group; (iii) their brothers and sisters and (iv) their grandparents, aunts and uncles. They were also asked where they learned allocutivity, i.e. at home, at school or within the community.

## 5 RESULTS

We begin with the judgment task results. Mixed effects modeling was carried out using the lme4 package in R Bates, Mächler, Bolker & Walker (2015), R Core Team (2014). Significance of effects was estimated using the lmerTest package (Kuznetsova, Bruun Brockhoff & Haubo Bojesen Christensen 2016). The dependent variable was the response to each trial normalized against each participant's mean score for the fillers, i.e. Rating-$M_{Filler}$. Variables were selected in a step up procedure with models compared via likelihood ratio tests.<fnref n="2" /> A model summary for the judgment data is given in Table 1.

The analysis supports three main findings of interest. First, the model reveals no significant effect of embedded vocative ratings. That is, participants' mean ratings for embedded vocative sentences, are not predictive of

<footnote n="2">² In this analysis, data from participants from Northern Dialects (from the three provinces of the Basque Country in France), for whom Spanish proficiency is less straightforwardly assumable were excluded.</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Estimate</th><th>Std. Error</th><th>df</th><th>t value</th><th>Pr(&gt;|t|)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(Intercept)</td><td>3.08</td><td>0.49</td><td>26.71</td><td>6.30</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Embedded voc. score</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.07</td><td>405.78</td><td>-0.41</td><td>0.683</td></tr><tr><td>Clause (Root)</td><td>-0.88</td><td>0.54</td><td>404.46</td><td>-1.63</td><td>0.103</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.01</td><td>405.15</td><td>-3.45</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Parent input (Yes)</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.23</td><td>404.47</td><td>2.20</td><td>0.029</td></tr><tr><td>Voc. score:Root clause</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.10</td><td>404.50</td><td>1.19</td><td>0.235</td></tr><tr><td>Clause (Root):Age</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.01</td><td>404.20</td><td>4.45</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Root(Root):Parent input (Yes)</td><td>-0.66</td><td>0.30</td><td>403.87</td><td>-2.17</td><td>0.031</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Table 1** Summary of a linear mixed effects model of allocutive sentence ratings in judgement task, with by-participant random slope and correlated intercept for clause and random by-item random intercept. N=409, Observations=1636. Reference levels *Embedded* for clausal context and *No* for Parent input. Model formula: $lmer(Response \sim \text{Embedded vocative score} * \text{Clause} + \text{Age} * \text{Clause} + \text{Parent allocutive input} * \text{Clause} + (\text{Clause} + 1 | \text{Participant}) + (1 | \text{Item}), data)$.

their judgments for embedded allocutive forms. The results, therefore, fail to support the correlation observed by Haddican & Etxeberria (2022) in their smaller Ordizia-area sample where acceptance of embedded allocutive forms correlated across speakers with acceptance of embedded vocatives.

A second key outcome of the analysis in Table 1 is an interaction between participant age and clausal context (root vs. embedded) such that acceptance of embedded allocutive patterns is negatively related to speaker age, while acceptance of root-only allocutive patterns increases with speaker age. We illustrate this in Figure 5, showing model estimates for the interaction term. That embedded allocutive marking should be accepted more readily among younger participants, is, again expected given descriptions in recent literature. More surprising, and not entailed by the results for embedded allocutive conditions, however, is the concomitant *decrease* in acceptance of root-only allocutive patterns among younger speakers. The fact that these two distributions are “yoked” in independent measurements suggests the possibility of competition between two grammars, one producing root-only allocutive patterns and one producing allocutive patterns in both root and embedded domains.

A third important outcome of the model summarize in Table 1 is the in-
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5** Model estimates for Participant age:Clause.</figcaption></figure>

interaction between clausal context and whether parents reported that their parents spoke to them using allocutive marking.<fnref n="3" /> Importantly, the analysis revealed greater tendency toward embedded allocutive marking among participants who reported that their parents spoke to them using allocutivity vs. those who reported that they did not. We illustrate this in Figure 6, again showing model estimates for the interaction term. This result, then, is inconsistent with common popular metalinguistic discourses that the emergence of embedded allocutivity is related to deficient input. Analysis of other possible predictors based on self-reported contexts of acquisition of allocutivity, i.e. whether they spoke allocutivity with friends at school and/or with grandparents, aunts and uncles revealed no significant effect.

Aligned with several of the main outcomes for the judgment results just summarized are the translation task data. A summary of a generalized linear mixed effects model of the translation task data appears in Table 2. The dependent variable here is whether the participant used allocutive marking in only the root clause or both root and embedded clauses. <fnref n="4" /> The model reveals three main outcomes most relevant to the discussion.

First, the analysis reveals no effect for acceptance of embedded vocatives

<footnote n="3">³ Specifically, participants were asked, "Do/did your parents speak to you using allocutivity." (Gurasoek egiten al dizute/zizuten hika?</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ *Because*-clauses are excluded from the analysis because participants used several different constructions in their responses, plausibly of different natures in terms of their embedding structure.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6** Model estimates for Parent input:Clause.</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Estimate</th><th>Std. Error</th><th>z value</th><th>Pr(&gt;|z|)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(Intercept)</td><td>3.03</td><td>0.38</td><td>7.94</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>-0.09</td><td>0.01</td><td>-7.36</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Embedding (<i>Conditional</i>)</td><td>1.15</td><td>0.25</td><td>4.55</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>(<i>Other</i>)</td><td>-2.93</td><td>0.20</td><td>-14.41</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Gender (<i>Masculine</i>)</td><td>0.91</td><td>0.18</td><td>5.08</td><td>0.000</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Table 2** Summary of a generalized linear mixed effects model predicting embedded allocutive responses in translation task, with by-participant random intercept. N=397, Observations=2936. Reference levels *Feminine* for gender and *Relative* for Sentence type. Participants from Northern dialects excluded. Model formula: `glmer(Response ~ Gender + Embedding type + Age + (1 | Participant), data, family=binomial, control=glmerControl(optimizer="bobyqa"))`.

on the translation task results. This aligns with the results from the judgment task data where acceptance of embedded vocatives also failed emerge as a significant predictor of acceptance of embedded allocutives.

Second, Table 2 summarizes an Age effect, with participant Age negatively correlated with acceptance of embedded allocutivity. That is, the effect of participant age in the judgment data, with younger participants favoring
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7** Translation task responses by context.</figcaption></figure>

embedded allocutive forms, is also observed in the translation task data.

Third, the analysis reveals an effect of morphological gender such that participants using masculine morphology favor innovative embedded allocutive responses. We take this to reflect the fact that masculine forms are better preserved by younger, innovative speakers. As noted earlier, allocutive use is more frequent to and from male speakers. In our data set, masculine morphology was overwhelmingly preferred by male speakers and feminine marking by female participants, and morphological gender emerged as a better predictor in the modeling than participant self-reported gender.

Fourth and finally, Table 2 lists a main effect of embedding type with *if*-clauses the most propitious environment for embedded allocutive forms followed by relative clauses, followed by other clause types. We illustrate this effect in Figure 7, which shows raw proportions of embedded vs. root responses by embedding type.

In addition, the hierarchy of embedding contexts in Figure 7 is predictive at the level of individual speakers. That is, by and large, participants only use allocutive marking in embeddings under verbs of saying if they do so in *if*-clauses, but not vice-versa. We illustrate this in the Venn diagram in Fig-
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8** Distribution of embedded allocutive responses pattern by context.</figcaption></figure>

ure 8, which shows proportions of embedded allocutive responses in three embedding types—if-clauses, relatives and complements of verbs of saying by speaker. Taking into account, as well, the cross-dialectal variation in conservative dialects, we then observe the following implicational hierarchy of contexts.

(20) **Hierarchy of embedding type effects on allocutive morphemes:**
Root declaratives > Root questions > If-clauses > Relatives > Other finite embeddings

# 6 DISCUSSION

The results just presented from both judgment and translation task data support previous reports of age effects on embedded allocutivity (prediction (i) in (17)). We take these age effects to reflect change in progress, there being no sociolinguistic motivation that we can see for taking the variable presence of root-restrictions on allocutive marking to be age-graded behavior.

The data presented, however, fail to support two other predictions introduced earlier. First, contra Haddican & Etxeberria (2022), the translation
task data do indeed suggest an effect of embedding type on use of embedded
allocutive morphemes with *if*-clauses and relative clauses favoring embed-
ded allocutivity relative to temporal adjunct clauses and complement clauses
(cf. prediction (ii.) (17)). A second misprediction of Haddican & Etxeber-
ria (2022) is a cross-speaker correlation of acceptance of embedded vocatives
and acceptance/production of embedded allocutives. That is, in neither the
judgment data nor the translation task data do we observe any correlation
across speakers with acceptance of embedded vocatives (cf. prediction (iii.)
(17)).

In the remaining discussion, we address these two mispredictions. Specif-
ically we focus on two questions: (i) what accounts for the hierarchy of con-
textual effects on embedded allocutive morphemes in (20)? and (ii) why, de-
spite considerable evidence for taking allocutive morphemes and vocative ex-
pressions to have the same syntactic locus, is no cross-speaker correlation be-
tween embedded vocative scores and embedded allocutive judgments/production
observed in our data set?

6.1 Embedding type effects

Our analysis of the hierarchy of embedding contexts summarized in (20)
extends an analysis by Alok & Haddican (2022) for the top portion of the
hierarchy. Recall the cross-dialectal variation described by Hualde (2003):
(i) in the most conservative variety, Zuberoan, allocutive morphemes are
restricted to root declaratives; (ii) in other conservative varieties, allocutive
morphemes are restricted to root contexts (declaratives and interrogatives)<fnref n="5" />;
and (iii) among innovative younger speakers in southern dialects, allocutive
morphemes are possible in both root and embedded clauses.

(i) J-oa-n!
EPEN-go.INF
‘Go!’

(ii) H-oa!
2SG.FAM-go
‘Go!’

In the former case, allocutive marking is not possible, presumably for the independent reason that allocutive clitics, like all person clitics, are not possible in non-finite constituents. Their unavailability in the latter case is presumably attributable to the more general restriction that allocutive morphemes cannot co-occur with a second person argumental clitic, here *h-* (Oy-harçabal 1993).

<footnote n="5">⁵ Allocutive morphemes do not appear in imperatives, possibly for independent reasons. Basque imperatives appear in both non-finite (i) and finite (ii) forms.</footnote>
From the perspective of truncation-based approaches to root/embedded
asymmetries, an initially appealing approach to these differences is that they
reflect different first-merged positions of the allocutive clitic (Julien 2009, Wik-
lund et al. 2009, Haegeman & Hill 2013). That is, in conservative dialects,
one might take the allocutive morpheme to be introduced in a high posi-
tion available only in true root contexts, as proposed by Miyagawa (2012) for
Zuberoan. (See also Portner et al.'s (2019) analysis of root restrictions in Ko-
rean allocutivity and Miyagawa's (2012) analysis of Japanese -mas-.) Innova-
tive varieties, in this scenario, would allow allocutive clitics to be introduced
in a lower projection available in both root and embedded domains. From this
perspective, the difference between Zuberoan, where allocutive morphemes
are restricted to root declaratives, and conservative southern dialects, where
they are available in both root questions and root declaratives, might be at-
tributed to a difference in position such that, in the former case but not the
latter, the allocutive clitic blocks the syntactic movement responsible for in-
terrogative flip (Speas & Tenny 2003, Woods 2014, Zu 2017, Bhadra 2018).

However, as noted by Alok & Haddican (2022), these embedding restric-
tions appear wholly uncorrelated with other properties indicative of different
first-merged positions for these clitics. We take three sets of facts to be most
telling in this light. First, there is no difference between conservative and in-
novative varieties in the placement of the allocutive morpheme. The allocu-
tive morpheme appears in different positions in the auxiliary, depending on
several factors including tense and the presence of other person clitics (Re-
buschi 1981, Albizu 1997, Arregi & Nevins 2012, Haddican 2018). But, what
it appears completely insensitive to is whether it sits in an embedded vs. root
clause or whether the speaker has the innovative vs. conservative pattern.

Second, if conservative and innovative varieties differed in their place-
ment, we might expect these varieties to differ in their interaction—e.g. by
blocking or varying in relative scope—with speaker/hearer related adverbs
and evidential particles including *omen* in (21) (Etxepare 2010, Monforte 2020).
No such interaction is observed.

(21) *Jon etorr-i omen z-u-a/-na-n.*
Jon come-PERF EVID EXPL-ROOT-2SG.FAM.MASC/FEM-T
‘John allegedly came.’

A third null result comes from patterns of allomorphy. As noted in sec-
tion 2, allomorphy between -k/n and -a/-na forms is governed by whether the
allocutive morpheme abuts a word boundary to its right<fnref n="6" />. In (22a), forms -k/-

<footnote n="6">⁶ The same rule governs allomorphy between 1sg. clitic forms -t and -da.</footnote>
n are determined because these appear left-adjacent to a word boundary. In (22b) where the form is auxiliary-internal, adjacent to no word edges, forms -a/-na are determined.

(22) a. *Jon etorr-i d-u-k/-n.*
*Jon come-PERF EXPL-ROOT-2SG.FAM.MASC/FEM*
*‘John has come.’* [Alloc. clitic adjacent to word boundary]

b. *Jon ikus-i d-i-a/-na-t.*
*Jon see-PERF EXPL-ROOT-2SG.FAM.MASC/FEM-1SG.ERG*
*‘I’ve seen John.’* [Alloc. clitic word internal]

There is variation across dialects and speakers, however, in how comple-
mentizer morphemes -ela and -en condition this variation. Our translation
task results, for instance, included the two responses in (23), to identical stim-
ulus items, both by male speakers in their 20's from Zarautz, a Gipuzkoan
variety. The first of these shows the -a- allomorph before the interrogative
complementizer, -en, while the second shows the -k allomorph.

(23) a. Ez z-eki-a-t [zeinek irabazi-ko]
NEG EXPL-KNOW-2SG.FAM.MASC who win-FUT
**d-i-a-(e)n].**
EXPL-ROOT-2SG.FAM.MASC-COMP
‘I don’t know who will win.’

b. Ez z-eki-a-t [zeinek irabazi-ko]
NEG EXPL-KNOW-2SG.FAM.MASC who win-FUT
**d-i-k-en].**
EXPL-ROOT-2SG.FAM.MASC-COMP
‘I don’t know who will win.’

A reasonable suspicion in light of these facts is that they reflect different
syntactic positions of the allocutive morpheme. The -a- form in (23a), for
example, might reflect a position inside a higher constituent where the alloc-
utive clitic and complementizer are sent to spell out together, thus satisfying
the allomorphy condition for -a-. The -k form, by contrast, might be taken to
be in a lower position, spelled out in a constituent excluding the complemen-
tizer, and thus feeding the allomorphy conditions determining “word-final”

(i) a. *Eman-n d-i-t.*
    give-PERF EXPL-ROOT-1SG
    ‘He/she/it/they gave it to me.’ [1sg. clitic adjacent to word boundary, > -t]

b. *Zu-k eman-n d-i-da-zu.*
    YOU-ERG give-PERF EXPL-ROOT-1SG-2SG
    ‘He/she/it/they gave it to me.’
    [1sg. clitic word internal, > -da]
-k. This putative difference in position might perhaps be related to their em-
beddability, perhaps along the lines of truncation-based analyses. But, as
illustrated in (23), the difference in allomorphy, whatever its nature, is in-
sufficient to determine embeddability of the allocutive clitic since both forms
appear robustly in the data set in embedded contexts.

A final reason for skepticism toward an approach that expresses the cross-
dialectal differences in terms of truncation and different first merged posi-
tions is that the allocutive clitic in all varieties appears to occupy a fairly low
position—one below routinely embeddable morphemes in all dialects and
therefore a position below the truncatable speech-act layer posited by Speas &
Tenny (2003), Miyagawa (2012), Haegeman & Hill (2013) and Portner et al.
(2019). (24), for example, shows that allocutive clitics appear to the left of
first person ergatives clitics. Similarly, in (21), the allocutive clitic appears
below the position of evidential particles, and inside the past-tense marking
final -n.<fnref n="7" />

(24) *Jan d-i-a-gu.*
eat EXPL-ROOT-2SG.FAM.MASC-2SG.ERG
‘We have eaten it.’

Following Alok & Haddican (2022), we take these facts to indicate that
the allocutive clitic is in fact introduced in the same position across dialects.
We propose that differences across dialects/speakers in embedding restric-
tions reflects variation in the way that the head responsible for introducing
the allocutive clitic is licensed. Specifically, we take this head to be of category
Appl, whose argument is interpreted as a speech act participant—specifically
an addressee—rather than an event participant. In Zuberoan, the most restri-
cive variety, Addr is licensed only in the local domain of Force and a speech-
act anchoring head, c, available only in root contexts (Portner et al. 2019).
Specifically, we take this licensing requirement to reflect an agreement rela-
tion between Addr and targets of agreement, Force and c.

<footnote n="7">⁷ This element has been analyzed in different ways in the literature, as an exponent of T (Laka 1993) or of a tense-inflecting C head (Arregi & Nevins 2012). In either case, what is important here is that the allocutive clitic appears inside morphemes that are ordinarily licit in embeddings.</footnote>
(25) Zuberoan

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

Conservative southern dialects, where allocutive morphemes are licit in
both root questions and root interrogatives, differ minimally in lacking Force
licensing as in (26).
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>(26) *Conservative southern varieties*</figcaption></figure>

And, finally, innovative southern varieties lack both restrictions (27), with
the consequence that allocutive clitics are possible in all finite contexts.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>(27) *Innovative southern varieties*</figcaption></figure>

We propose to extend this approach to cross-dialectal differences to pro-
vide a partial account of the difference between *if*-clauses and complement
clauses in Figure 7. Bhatt & Pancheva (2006) propose that the structure of *if*-
clauses is fundamentally the same as that for free relatives. Free relatives have
a structure akin to that for root wh-questions, with operator movement as in (28). Free relatives are interpreted as definite descriptions with the variable abstracted over bound by a definite operator, as in (28b).

(28) what John bought

a. LF: whₓ C⁰ John bought x

b. ix[John bought x]
(Bhatt & Pancheva 2006)

Bhatt & Pancheva (2006) propose that *if*-clauses are fundamentally sim-
ilar in involving operator movement, but differ in that *if*-clauses are inter-
preted as definite descriptions of possible worlds.

(29) if John arrives late

a. LF: Op<sub>w</sub> C<sup>0</sup> John arrives late in w

b. iw[John arrives late in w]
(Bhatt & Pancheva 2006)

Some initial support for this approach comes from the fact that *if*-clauses
in Basque, like English, are incompatible with speaker/hearer oriented ad-
verbs, which Haegeman (2010) took to reflect intervention of the adverb in
movement of a Speech Act operator.

(30) *Op if **frankly** he's ___ unable to cope, we'll have to replace him.
___
(Adapted from Haegeman (2010))

(31) *Egoera (**benetan**) ezin badu (**benetan**) jasan, ordezkatu egin situation frankly can't IF.AUX frankly handle, replace do beharko dugu. need.FUT AUX

'If they can't handle the situation, we'll have to replace them.'

Let us assume, following Haegeman (2010) and Bhatt & Pancheva (2006),
that if-clauses contain a World operator that moves to an if-clause-internal
Speech-Act Phrase. Assume, further, that this is bound by the matrix little-
c. We propose, in this light, that the innovation leading to the availability
allocutive marking in if- clauses in semi-conservative grammars, is licensing
of the clitic-hosting Addr by the World operator, as in (32).
(32) If-clauses

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

From the perspective of this analysis, the fact that, for some participants, restrictive relative clauses are also improved as hosts for embedded allocutive morphemes, compared to complement declaratives and embedded questions, might suggest that the operator implicated in restrictive relative clauses, can license the allocutive clitic in a similar way.<fnref n="8" /> We set aside this issue in the remaining discussion.

## 6.2 The non-correlation of allocutives & vocatives

A second challenge posed by the results presented in Section 5 is to explain the fact that acceptance of embedded vocatives does not correlate across participants with acceptance of embedded allocutives or production of embedded allocutives in the translation task. In Section 3, we discussed some reasons for positing a partially unified syntactic approach to vocatives and allocutives and adopted Portner et al.'s (2019) proposal that vocatives and allocutives are in fact introduced in the same projection. But, this proposal, without further qualification, leads to the expectation that the same speakers who accept embedded vocatives will favor embedded allocutives in judgment and production tasks, which was not borne out by the data presented in Section 5. Instead, what we observe is an age effect for embedded allocutives but no such effect for embedded vocatives. We illustrate this in Figure 9, showing by-participant mean scores for embedded allocutives and vocatives by participant age.

Beyond the fact observed here that vocatives and allocutives in embedded contexts are distributed differently across speakers, there are a few other ways in which they diverge. First, unlike allocutive clitics, vocative expressions may be XPs. Vocatives are also distinguished by the fact that they may have the form of third person DPs but be interpreted as referring to the addressee (Hill 2007, Slocum 2016). Second, unlike allocutive clitics in Basque, which are obligatory in relevant sociolinguistic contexts, vocative expressions

<footnote n="8">⁸ See Geis (1985) for an analysis of *if*-clauses as relatives.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 9** By-participant mean scores for embedded allocutives and vocatives by age.</figcaption></figure>

are optional. They necessarily co-occur with a call, or empathy request interpretation, which is never the case for allocutive clitics. Third and finally, vocative expressions in Basque, as in other varieties described, must be set off prosodically. As shown in (33), in the presence of foci, these distribute like topics—appearing either to the left of foci or finally. In (33), for example, the allocutive, *bihotza*, ‘honey’ is obligatorily separated from clausal material to the right by pause.

(33) **(Bihotza)** — BIHAR etorriko nau-k-ela **(bihotza)**
heart tomorrow come.FUT AUX-2SG.FAM.MASC-C heart
‘Honey (I said that) I will come TOMORROW.’

We take these facts to reflect additional functional structure in vocative
phrases not present in the allocutive clitic. Specifically, following Hill (2013,
2022), Slocum (2016) and Akkuş & Hill (2021), we assume that vocative phrases
contain a VocP layer responsible for the addressee interpretation. Let us as-
sume, moreover, that these constituents move to an utterance anchoring po-
sition restricted to root contexts (Moro 2003, Hill 2013, Portner et al. 2019).
(34)

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Our proposal, then, is that contexts like (35) reflect not placement of the vocative expression in an embedded CP, but rather topicalization of embedded clause material to a position above the remnant vocative introduced in the root clause, as Slocum (2016) proposes for medial vocative expressions in English. <fnref n="9" />

(35) [Ikusiko dugu ea astelehenean]ₖ motel, tₖ argazkiak bidaliko dituzten. see.FUT AUX if on.Monday dude photos send.FUT AUX ‘Dude, we’ll see if they’ll send the photos on Monday.’

The consequence of this is that the change affecting allocutive morphemes—change in the licensing of Addr—does not affect the distribution of vocative phrases since these must move to the root cP, regardless. These assumptions, then, yield the desired result—shift in embedded allocutive marking without change in embedded vocatives.

## 7 CONCLUSION

The goal of this paper has been to probe an apparent change in progress toward loss of root-clause restrictions on Basque allocutive morphemes. We have done so using results from a recent survey of 421 self-described Basque allocutive users.

The results of our support the following three main findings.

i. Our results from both the translation task and the judgment task suggest an age effect on embedded allocutive forms. Younger participants were more likely than older participants to use embedded allocutive forms in translation task responses. They also rated embedded allocutive forms higher than older speakers in the judgment task. We take this age effect to reflect change in progress, there being no motivation that we are aware of for taking this contextual effect on clitic distributions to be age-graded behavior.

<footnote n="9">⁹ See Ortiz de Urbina (2002) on remnant topicalization in Basque more generally.</footnote>
ii. Contrary to findings by Haddican & Etxeberria (2022) based on a smaller sample, our translation task results suggest that use of allocutive morphemes varies across embedding types with *if*-clauses and relative clauses more propitious environments for allocutive clitics than complement clauses and temporal adjuncts. We propose that these differences reflect different ways that the head introducing the allocutive clitic—a species of applicative morpheme—is licensed.

iii. Also contrary to findings by Haddican & Etxeberria (2022), our results failed to support the hypothesis that acceptance of embedded vocatives will correlate across speakers with acceptance and use of embedded allocutives. We take the absence of cross-speaker variation to indicate partially different representations for the two sets of forms with vocatives subject to stricter root-constraints across varieties.

An important weakness of the data presented here is that the comparison of the effect of embedding type in the translation task data is based on only one or two items per type. The results reported here suggesting differences across embedding types should be replicated using a larger and more varied set of items. (See Epelde, Haddican, Etxeberria, Etxepare, Albizu, Pineda & Rodriguez (in preparation).)

Almost entirely overlooked in much of the recent formal work on Basque allocutivity are two further kinds of allocutive agreement found in Northern dialects known as *zuka* and *xuka*, based on second person formal clitics (Alberdi 1995). How and whether these forms are undergoing changes similar to those described for the familiar, gender marked morphemes described here, warrants further study.

8 APPENDIX

(36) Translation task items

i. Maia ha dicho que vendrá. [say complement]

ii. Te he dicho que le daremos un abrazo. [say complement]

iii. Ramón ha olvidado que tiene que trabajar. [factive complement]

iv. Las casas que hemos visto son bonitas. [relative]

v. Sabes si Aitor vendrá? [embedded yes/no-question]

vi. No se quién va a ganar. [embedded wh-question]

vii. Ander sonrió cuando me vió. [temporal clause]

viii. Cuando llegue Miren, empezaremos. [temporal clause]
ix. Me voy porque es tarde. [because-clause]

x. Si es muy caro, no lo compraremos. [if-clause]

(37) Translation task items, English

i. Maia said she would come. [say complement]

ii. I told you that we would give him a hug. [say complement]

iii. Ramon forgot that he has to work. [factive complement]

iv. The houses we saw are pretty. [relative]

v. Do you know if Aitor will come? [embedded yes/no-question]

vi. I don't know who will win. [embedded wh-question]

vii. Ander smiled when he saw me. [temporal clause]

viii. When Miren arrives, we'll start. [temporal clause]

ix. I'm leaving because it's late [because-clause]

x. If it's very expensive, we won't buy it. [if-clause]

REFERENCES

Akkuş, Faruk & Virginia Hill. 2021. Overt speakers in syntax. *Glossa* 6(1).

Alberdi, Jabier. 1995. The development of the Basque system of terms of address and the allocutive conjugation. In José Ignacio Hualde, Joseba Andoni Lakarra & Robert L. Trask (eds.), *Toward a history of the Basque language*, 275–294. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Albizu, Pablo. 1997. Generalized Person-Case Constraint: A case for a syntax-driven inflectional morphology. In Amaya Mendikoetxea & Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria (eds.), *Theoretical issues at the morphology-syntax interface*, 1–34. Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.

Alok, Deepak. 2020. *Speaker and Addressee in natural language: Honorificity, indexicality and their interaction in Magahi*: Rutgers dissertation.

Alok, Deepak. 2021. The morphosyntax of Magahi addressee agreement. *Syn-tax* 24(3). 263–296.

Alok, Deepak & Mark Baker. 2018. On the mechanics (syntax) of indexical shift: Evidence from allocutive agreement in Magahi, MS. Rutgers.

Alok, Deepak & Bill Haddican. 2022. The formal heterogeneity of allocutivity. *Glossa: a journal of general linguistics* 7(1).

Álvarez Blanco, Rosario. 1997. O complemento de solidariedade: A complicidade entre os interlocutores. In Benígno Fernaández Salgado (ed.), *Actas do IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Galegos*, 37–53. Centre for Galician Studies.

Arregi, Karlos & Andrew Nevins. 2012. *Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout*, vol. 86. Dordrecht: Springer.
Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2003. Adjunct subordination. In José Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), *A grammar of Basque*, 710–762. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Aurrekoetxea, Gotzon. 1994. Hitanoa ahozko hizkuntza (Euskal Herriko Hizkuntza Atlasaren arabera. *Euskera* 39(2). 995–1009.

Azkue, María Resurrección. 1923. *Morfología vasca (Gramática básica dialectal del Euskera)*. Bilbao: Editorial La Gran Enciclopedia Vasca 2nd edn.

Azkue Ibarbia, Xabier. 1998. *Hitanoa Zumaian*. Zumaiako Udala.

Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. *Journal of Statistical Software* 67(1). 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01.

Bentzen, Kristine. 2014. Embedded verb second (v2). *Nordic Atlas of Language Structures* 1. 211–224.

Bhadra, Diti. 2018. Evidentials are syntax-sensitive: The view from Bangla. *Glossa: a journal of general linguistics* 3(1).

Bhatt, R & R Pancheva. 2006. Conditionals. In Everaert M. & van Riemsdijk H (eds.), *The blackwell companion to syntax, ...*

Carbón Riobóo, María de la Soledad. 1995. Ethical datives and solidarity clitics in Galician, MA Thesis, University of Kansas.

Drummond, Alex. 2013. Ibex Farm, http://spellout.net/ibexfarm.

Echeverria, Begoña. 2003. Language ideologies and practices in (en) gender-ing the basque nation. *Language in society* 32(3). 383–413.

Elordieta, Arantzazu & Bill Haddican. 2018. Truncation feeds intervention: Two clause-type effects in Basque. *Natural Language & Linguistic Theory* 36(2). 403–443.

Emonds, Joseph Embley. 1969. *Root and structure-preserving transformations.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.*

Epelde, Irantzu, Bill Haddican, Urtzi Etxeberria, Ricardo Etxepare, Pablo Al-bizu, Anna Pineda & Itxaso Rodriguez. in preparation. Non-participant addressees in basque: System, variation and attrition, anr funded project.

Etxepare, Ricardo. 2003. Negation. In José Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), *A grammar of Basque*, 564–571. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Etxepare, Ricardo. 2010. *Omen bariazioan*. In Beatriz Fernandez, Pablo Al-bizu & Ricardo Etxepare (eds.), *Euskara eta euskarak: aldakortasun sintak-tikoa aztergai*, 85–112. Bilbao: UPV-EHU.

Euskaltzaindia. 2008. *Euskararen herri hizkeren atlasa*. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia.

Geis, Michael L. 1985. The syntax of conditional sentences. In Michael L Geis (ed.), *Studies in generalized phrase structure grammar*, 130–159. Ohio State University. Department of Linguistics.

Haddican, Bill. 2018. The syntax of Basque allocutive clitics. *Glossa* 3(1). 1.
Haddican, Bill & Urtzi Etxeberria. 2022. Embedded allocutivity in Basque. *Syntax*.

Haegeman, Liliane. 2010. The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. *Lingua* 120(3). 628–648.

Haegeman, Liliane & Virginia Hill. 2013. The syntactization of discourse. In Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali & Robert Truswell (eds.), *Syntax and its limits*, 370–390. Oxford University Press.

Hill, Virginia. 2007. Vocatives and the pragmatics-syntax interface. *Lingua* 117(12). 2077–2105.

Hill, Virginia. 2013. *Vocatives: How syntax meets with pragmatics*. Brill.

Hill, Virginia. 2022. The syntactization of kinship in vocative phrases. *Glossa: a journal of general linguistics* 7(1).

Hooper, Joan B & Sandra A Thompson. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. *Linguistic Inquiry* 4(4). 465–497.

Hualde, José Ignacio. 2003. Finite forms. In José Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), *A grammar of Basque*, 211–252. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Hualde, José Ignacio, Bernard Oyharçabal & Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 2003. Verbs. In José Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), *A grammar of Basque*, 201–323. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Huidobro, Susana. 2022. *Non-argumental clitics in Spanish and Galician: A case study of the distribution of solidarity and ethical clitics*: City University of New York dissertation.

Julien, Marit. 2009. Embedded V2 in Norwegian and Swedish. *Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax* 80. 103–161.

Kaur, Gurmeet. 2020. On the syntax of addressee in imperatives: insights from allocutivity. *Glossa: a journal of general linguistics* 5(1). 1–44.

Kaur, Gurmeet & Akitaka Yamada. 2019. Embedded allocutivity and its reference. Handout at Person and Perspective workshop, May 4, 2019.

Kim, Sanghee. 2019. Allocutive agreement in korean under cyclic agree. *Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America* 4(1). 56–1.

Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Bruun Brockhoff & Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen. 2016. *lmertest: Tests in linear mixed effects models*. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest. R package version 2.0-30.

Laka, Itziar. 1990. *Negation in syntax, on the nature of functional categories and projections*: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy dissertation.

Laka, Itziar. 1993. The structure of inflection: A case study in X�0 syntax. In José Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), *Generative studies in Basque linguistics*, 21–70. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

McFadden, Thomas. 2020. The morphosyntax of allocutive agreement in
Tamil. In Peter W. Smith, Johannes Mursell & Katharina Hartmann (eds.), *Agree to agree: Agreement in the minimalist programme*, 391–424. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2012. Agreements that occur mainly in the main clause. In Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds.), *Main clause phenomena: New horizons*, 79–112. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2013. Surprising agreements at T and C, M.S. MIT.

Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2022. *Syntax in the treetops*. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Monforte, Sergio. 2020. *Galderetako -a, al eta ote partikulak euskaraz: University of the Basque Country dissertation*.

Moro, Andrea. 2003. Notes on vocative case. A case study in clause structure. In Josep Quer, Jan Schroten, Mauro Scorretti, Petra Sleeman & Els Verheugd (eds.), *Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2001: Selected papers from Going Romance*, 247–262. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. *Natural Language & Linguistic Theory* 29(4). 939–971.

Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1989. *Some parameters in the grammar of Basque*. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 2002. Focus of correction and remnant movement in Basque. In Xabier Artiagoitia (ed.), *Erramu boneta. festschrift for rudolf pg de rijk*, 511–524. Bilbao, Basque Country: University of the Basque Country.

Oyharçabal, Bernard. 1993. Verb agreement with non arguments: On allocutive agreement. In José Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), *Generative studies in basque linguistics*, 89–89. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pak, Miok D. 2017. Towards understanding the syntactic representation of honorifics in Korean. *Korean Linguistics* 17(2). 132–166.

Portner, Paul, Miok Pak & Raffaella Zanuttini. 2019. The addressee at the syntax-semantics interface: Evidence from politeness and speech style. *Language* 95(1). 1–36.

R Core Team. 2014. *R: A language and environment for statistical computing*. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.

Rebuschi, Georges. 1981. Autour des formes allocutives du Basque. In *Eu-skalarien nazioarteko jardunaldiak*, 307–321. Euskaltzaindia.

Rebuschi, Georges. 1984. *Structure de l'énoncé en Basque*, vol. 3. Peeters Publishers.

Slocum, Poppy. 2016. *The syntax of address: State University of New York at Stony Brook dissertation*.
Speas, Peggy & Carol Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Anne Marie Di Sciullo (ed.), *Asymmetry in grammar*, vol. 1, 315–345. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2018. An alternative model of indexical shift: Variation and selection without context-overwriting, Ms. University of Leipzig.

Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. *Linguistic Inquiry* 26(1). 79–123.

Wiklund, Anna-Lena, Kristine Bentzen, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson & Þorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2009. On the distribution and illocution of V2 in Scandinavian *that*-clauses. *Lingua* 119(12). 1914–1938.

Woods, Rebecca. 2014. The syntax of orientation shifting: Evidence from English high adverbs. In *Console xxii: Proceedings of the 22nd conference of the student organization of linguistics in europe (8-10 january 2014, lisbon)*., vol. 22, 205–230.

Zehr, Jeremy & Florian Schwarz. 2018. Penncontroller for internet based experiments (IBEX). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MD832.

Zu, Vera. 2017. *Discourse participants and the structural representation of the context*: New York University dissertation.

Zuazo, Koldo. 2008. *Euskalkiak: Euskararen Dialektoak*. Donostia: Elkar.

Haddican

Department of Linguistics and Communication

Disorders, CUNY Queens College

Department of Linguistics, CUNY Graduate Center

65-30 Kissena Blvd.

Queens, NY 11367

USA

........

bill.haddican@gmail.com

Etxeberria

IKER-UMR5478

Gaztelu Berria

15 place Paul Bert plaza

64100 Baiona

Pays Basque

........

urtzi.etxeberria@iker.cnrs.fr

Epelde

IKER-UMR5478

Gaztelu Berria

15 place Paul Bert plaza

64100 Baiona

Pays Basque

........

irantzu.epelde@iker.cnrs.fr

Etxepare

IKER-UMR5478

Gaztelu Berria

15 place Paul Bert plaza

64100 Baiona

Pays Basque

........

ricardo.etxepare@iker.cnrs.fr