Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE ( © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 June 2019

Abstract and Keywords

This chapter presents an account of Basque behar ‘need’ within the TotalErg hypothesis that holds that Ergative case is inherent and Ergativity does not split. Predicates like behar ‘need’ appear to display a split in subject case assignment, and have been argued to provide crucial evidence against the tenants of TotalErg (Rezac, Albizu and Etxepare 2014) and in favor of a structural assignment of ergative case by Tense. I argue that these predicates are best accounted for as nominals, following Etxepare and Uribe-Etxebarria (2012) and Harves and Kayne (2012), and not as raising modals, as argued by Rezac et al (2014). The account in this chapter yields a uniform derivation for all instances of behar, independently of the type of complement the predicate takes and it allows us to do away with raising-to-ergative, predicted not to exist by the TotalErg approach, following the original claim in Marantz (2000).

Keywords: ergativity, inherent case, raising to ergative, split ergativity, Basque, case morphology

Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.

Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.

For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs, and if you can''t find the answer there, please contact us.