This project aims to elaborate an exhaustive analysis of the syntactic and semantic funcions performed by three type of functional elements associated to the left periphery which all behave morphophonologically as clitics adjacent to the verb.

​

We wish to understand how they contribute to sentence interpretation, which is their syntactic structure and, besides, how they relate to each other hierarchically speaking, so that we will provide an answer to the lack of existence of certain morpheme combinations. The ultimate goal is to extend the analysis to other grammars (languages) and value to what extent one can formalize the observed interlinguistic variation. The functional categories under scrutiny include: (1) modal or discourse particles like interrogative ote (standard Basque) /ete (non-standard), the interrogative al (standard Basque and central dialect) and the Northeastern -a (both present in yes/no questions), and the hearsay evidentials omen (standard Basque) and ei (Western Basque); (2) the negative particle ez, with special focus on the distribution with respect to discourse particles and the inflected verb; (3) the range of complementizers, which are also clitics on the inflected verb. Even though there are studies that tackle partially and/or separately one of the three functional heads, the novelty of this project is the emphasis on providing a unified syntactic account of the behaviour of three types of heads and, above all, of the distribution and interaction among them, which may give rise to mutual exclusion. Specifically, we address the following descriptive and theoretical questions:

​

a. why is it that some complementizers permit two word orders in negative sentences, but others do not? What conditions this kind of variation? In relation to this: how can we account for the evolution and word order change of the verbal elements in root negative sentences?

b. Which discourse particles may combine among them and how do these combinations relate to the sentence structure and the syntax-semantics interface?

​

c. Why is it that some Basque varieties permit certain combinations of functional elements whilst others do not?; and how can this variation be harmonic with the possibilites offered by UG?

d. How may two separate functional categories (mood and complementizers) have the same function? Where does this variation arise from?

​

e. What does the Basque language teach us about the functional elements in general? How does grammar constrain the possibilities for microvariation within the same language?

​

These issues bear on the knowledge and development of Basque grammar but they also intend to inform the general theory of language and typology; because of this, the results will be relevant for (and reported to) the local and global scientific community.