External Possession and Nominative Subject in Basque
ISHIZUKA Masayuki
Graduate Student, the University of Tokyo!
We discuss the properties of external possessors with dative case in a dialect ofBasque. The language has an external-possessor construction (EPC henceforth) close to theEuropean prototype, where the possessor is realized as a clause-level dative-marked NP
argument of the verb, rather than an adjunct of the possessum (Haspelmath 1999). The
verbs that occur in this construction are generally dynamic, since the possessor needs to beaffected by the situation.
!
The construction is readily available in transitive structures in the Lecumberry
dialect, spoken in Lower Navarre, France. Consider the following alternation:!
!
!
!
!

(1a)!
!
(1b)!
!
!

Manex!!
hautx-i!!
du!
!
Manex!
break-PFV! AUX! !
Manex!!
hautx-i!!
dako! !
Manex!
break-PFV! AUX+DAT!
‘Manex has broken Peio’s car.’Peio-ren!
Peio-GEN!
[bere/Ø]!
his! !

otoa
car
otoa!
car!

Peio-riPeio-DAT!
In (1b) the person is marked by dative case to express a possessive relation with theobject entity.
!
The EPC covers both inalienable and alienable possessions, but only in the formercase is the overt expression of the NP-internal possessor permitted. Compare (1b) and (2).
!
!
!

(2)!
!
!

Manex!!
hautxi!!
dako! !
[*bere/Ø]!
Manex!
broke! !
AUX+DAT! his! !
‘Manex has broken Peio’s nose.’xudurra!
nose! !

Peio-riPeio-DAT!
On the other hand, the use of the EPC is more narrowly restricted in intransitive
contexts. Alienable possessums must be animate as (3) and (4) demonstrate. In addition, asin (5), inalienable possessors can only be encoded in the dative form of the auxiliary and it
is not possible to express them as a dative-marked NP.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

(3)!
!
!
(4)!
!
!
(5)!
!
!

*otoa! hautx-i!!
zako! !
Peio-ricar! break-PFV! AUX+DAT! Peio-DAT‘Peio’s car has broken.’alaba! !
joan! !
zako! !
Peio-ridaughter!
go.PFV!
AUX+DAT! Peio-DAT‘Peio’s daughter has gone.’
zangoak!
hautx-i!!
zazko! !
[*Peio-ri/Ø]legs! !
break-PFV! AUX+DAT! Peio-DAT‘Peio’s legs have broken.’!
The hypothesis I would like to propose is that the data observed for the dialect inquestion could be part of a broader process of language change toward the pattern whichhighlights the nominative subject and abolishes the dative one. Lamiroy (2003) suggeststhat the emergence of this pattern in Dutch and French disabled the possessive-dative
construction for wide application in the languages.
!
I will outline several arguments for the above hypothesis. With respect to the drift
to nominative-subject highlighting, evidence is provided by two changes in the grammarof the dialect. It allows non-marked NPs as subjects in both intransitive and transitive
contexts, while well-known, more conservative dialects consistently mark transitive
subjects with ergative case. Besides the fact, a subject NP is in a structurally higher
position than other co-arguments. The structure is reflected in the binding constraint onreflexive possessives. This is not true of conservative dialects. Change in the lexicon also
shows the drift: most of the verbs used with a dative subject in other dialects have come toselect a nominative-subject.
!
My suggestion is that the reason why in intransitive contexts alienable inanimate
possessums and inalienable possessors are prohibited resides in the topicality of the NPs.
In these contexts the dative possessor NPs are more topical than the nominative
possessums. There are two reasons for this. First, the possessor is always animate since it
must be susceptible to the situation. Second, it has a part-whole relation to its possessumin inalienable possession. This subject-like property of the possessor dative conflicts withthe dialect’s tendency toward nominative subjects. In alienable possession, animatepossessums are acceptable because they are as topical as the possessor.
!
The above proposal is supported by an example from the standard dialect of Basque
Batua, which keeps dative subjects and has no nominative ones. Batua is thus lenient about
the EPC in intransitive contexts. Compare (3) with (6).
!
!
!

(6)!
!
!

kotxea! hauts-i!!
zaio! !
Peio-ricar! break-PFV! AUX+DAT! Peio-DAT‘Peio’s car has broken.’!
Another piece of evidence is from the Lecumberry dialect itself. The meaning
intended by the structure in (3) can be encoded in a transitive structure with the possessor
in the subject position as in (7).
!
!
!

(7)!
!
!

Peio! !
otoa! !
Peio[SBJ]!
car[OBJ]!
‘Peio’s car has broken.’hautx-i!-a!
du!
break-PFV-SG!have.PRS!

!
We can conclude that the drift toward nominative-subject highlighting suppresses
subject-like dative NPs in the EPC with an intransitive verb.
Haspelmath, Martin (1999) External possession in European areal perspective. In: Doris L.
Payne and Immanuel Barshi (eds.) External possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
109-135.
Lamiroy, Béatrice (2003) Grammaticalization and external possessor structures in Romanceand Germanic languages. Martin Coene and Yves D’hulst (eds.) From NP to DP. vol. 2.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 257-280.