1887
Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Object markers (OMs) in Bantu languages have long been argued to be either incorporated pronouns or agreement morphemes, distinguished mainly by their ability (or not) to co-occur with (i.e. double) objects. Lubukusu appears to be an instance of OMs-as-incorporated pronouns, as OMs in neutral discourse contexts cannot double objects in a broad range of syntactic contexts. As we show, however, certain pragmatic contexts in fact do license OM-doubling; we demonstrate that OM-doubling in Lubukusu is licit only on a verum (focus) interpretation. We analyze OM-doubling within a Minimalist framework as the result of an Agree relation between the object and a verum-triggering Emphasis head (Emph°). The non-doubling OM results from an incorporation operation. We therefore claim that Lubukusu displays two distinct syntactic derivations of OMs (generating doubling and non-doubling) with the interpretive effects of OM-doubling arising from the semantic/pragmatic properties of Emph°.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00027.sik
2019-02-01
2019-07-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abels, Klaus and Peter Muriungi
    2008 The focus marker in Kîîtharaka: Syntax and semantics. Lingua118: 287–731. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aboh, Enoch
    2004The morphosyntax of complement-head sequences: Clause structure and word order patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195159905.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195159905.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Adams, Nicki
    2010 The Zulu ditransitive verb phrase. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.
  4. Anagnostopoulou, Elena
    2006 Clitic doubling. InThe Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume1, eds.Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 520–581. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470996591.ch14
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch14 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, M.
    1988a Theta Theory and the Syntax of Applicatives in Chichewa, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory6: 353–389. 10.1007/BF00133903
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133903 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, Mark
    1988bIncorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1997 Thematic roles and syntactic structure. InElements of grammar, ed.Liliane Haegeman, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_2 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2003 Agreement, Dislocation and Partial Configurationality. InFormal Approaches to Function, edsA. Carnie, H. Harley and M. Willie, 107–134. John Benjamins: Amsterdam. 10.1075/la.62.09bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.62.09bak [Google Scholar]
  9. 2008The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619830
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619830 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2016On the status of object markers in Bantu languages. Ms, Rutgers University.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Baker, Mark and Chris Collins
    2006 Linkers and the internal structure of vP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory24: 307–354. 10.1007/s11049‑005‑2235‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-005-2235-1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Baker, Mark and Ruth Kramer
    2016Doubling clitics are pronouns: Reduce and interpret. Ms, Rutgers University and Georgetown University.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Baker, Mark, Ken Safir, and Justine Sikuku
    2012a Sources of (A)symmetry in Bantu Double Object Constructions. InProceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds.Nathan Arnett and Ryan Bennett, 54–64. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2012b On the Categories of Clausal Constituents in Lubukusu and Limits to their Selection. Afranaph Technical Report #8. www.africananaphora.rutgers.edu/
  15. 2013 Complex anaphora in Lubukusu. InSelected Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference on African Linguistics, eds.Olanike Ola Orie and Karen W. Sanders, 196–206. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bax, Anna and Michael Diercks
    2012 Information structure constraints on object marking in Manyika. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Sciences30.2: 185–202. 10.2989/16073614.2012.737596
    https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2012.737596 [Google Scholar]
  17. Belletti, Adriana
    1999 Italian/Romance Clitics: Structure and Derivation. In: Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Henk van Riemsdijk, 543–579. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bresnan, Joan, and Sam Mchombo
    1987 Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichêwa. Language63:741–782. 10.2307/415717
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415717 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bresnan, Joan and Lioba Moshi
    1990 Object asymmetries in Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry21: 147–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Buell, Leston
    2005 Issues in Zulu morphosyntax. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.
  21. 2009 Evaluating the immediate postverbal position as a focus position in Zulu. InSelected proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on African Linguistics: linguistic theory and African language documentation, eds.M. Matondo, F. McLaughlin, & E. Potsdam, 166–172. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Byarushengo, Ernest R., Larry M. Hyman, and Sarah Tenenbaum
    1976 Tone, accent and assertion in Haya. InStudies in Bantu tonology, ed.Larry M. Hyman, 183–205. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Carstens, Vicki
    2005 Agree and EPP in Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory23: 219–279. 10.1007/s11049‑004‑0996‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-0996-6 [Google Scholar]
  24. Carstens, Vicki and Michael Diercks
    2013 Agreeing How? Implications for Theories of Agreement and Locality. Linguistic Inquiry44.2: 179–237. 10.1162/LING_a_00125
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00125 [Google Scholar]
  25. Cechetto, Carlo
    2000 Doubling Structures and Reconstruction. Probus12: 93–126. 10.1515/prbs.2000.12.1.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2000.12.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  26. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Laura Downing
    2009 Where’s the topic in Zulu?The Linguistic Review26: 207–238. 10.1515/tlir.2009.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2009.008 [Google Scholar]
  27. Chomsky, Noam
    2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. InStep by step: Essays in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds.Roger Andrew Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2001 Derivation by phase. InKan Hale: A life in language, ed.Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2013 Problems of Projection. Lingua130: 33–49. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  30. Collins, Chris
    2004 The agreement parameter. InTriggers, eds.Anne Breitbarth, Henk van Riemsdijk, 115–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197433.115
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197433.115 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2014 The Linker in Khoisan Languages. Talk given at the45th Annual Conference on African Linguistics at Kansas University. March, 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Dalgish, Gerard M.
    1986 /-a-/ reduction phenomena in Luyia. Studies in African Linguistics17: 155–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. den Dikken, Marcel
    . Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Diercks, Michael
    2010 Agreement with subjects in Lubukusu. Washington, DC: Georgetown University dissertation.
  35. 2011a The morphosyntax of Lubukusu locative inversion and the parameterization of Agree. Lingua121: 702–720. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2011b Incorporating Location in Argument Structure: The Lubukusu Locative Clitic. InSelected Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference on African Linguistics: African Languages and Linguistics Today, eds.E. Bokamba, R. Shosted, and B. T. Ayalew, 65–79. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2012 Parameterizing Case: Evidence from Bantu. Syntax15.3: 253–286. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2011.00165.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00165.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Diercks, Michael and Kristen Hernández
    . Raising in Lutirichi. Ms, Pomona College.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Diercks, Michael, Rodrigo Ranero, and Mary Paster
    2014 Evidence for a Clitic Analysis of Object Markers in Kuria. InSelected Proceedings of the 44th Annual conference on African Linguistics, eds.Ruth Kramer, Elizabeth C. Zsiga, and One Tlale Boyer, 52–70. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Diercks, Michael and Meghana Rao
    2017Upward-oriented complementizer agreement with subjects and objects in Kipsigis. Ms, Pomona College. To appear in theProceedings of the 47th Annual Conference on African Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Diesing, Molly
    1992Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Duranti, Alessandro, and Ernest R. Byarushengo
    1977 On the notion of “direct object”. InHaya grammatical structure, eds.Ernest R. Byarushengo, Alessandro Duranti, and Larry M. Hyman, 45–71. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Engdahl, Elisabet
    2006 Information packaging in questions. InBonami, Olivier and Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6, pp.93–111. Papers from CSSP 2005. Available online atwww.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/index_en.html
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Grice, H. P.
    1975 Logic and Conversation. InP. Cole and J. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics, Vol 3, Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Gutzmann, Daniel
    2013 Expressives and beyond: An introduction to varieties of conventional non-truth-conditional meaning. InDaniel Gutzmann and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning, 1–58. Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface (CRiSPI) 28Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004183988_002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004183988_002 [Google Scholar]
  46. Gutzmann, Daniel and Elena Castroviejo Miró
    2011 The dimensions of verum. InEmpirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8, eds.O. Bonami and P. Cabredo Hofherr, 143–165. Available online atwww.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss8/
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Harizanov, Boris
    2014 Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface: A-movement and morphological merger in Bulgarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory:32.4:1033–1088. 10.1007/s11049‑014‑9249‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9249-5 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hartmann, Katharina
    2013 Verum blocking effects in Chadic languages. Lingua136: 103–124. 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  49. Henderson, Brent
    2006 The syntax and typology of Bantu relative clauses. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois dissertation.
  50. Hiraiwa, Ken
    2001 EPP: Object shift and stylistic fronting in Scandinavian. InWCCFL 20: Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds.K. Megerdoomian and L. A. Barel, 290–303. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Höhle, Tilman N.
    1992 Über verum-fokus im deutschen. InJacobs, Joachim (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, pp.112–141. Westdeutscher Verlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑12176‑3_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-12176-3_5 [Google Scholar]
  52. Hyman, Larry
    1999 The interaction between focus and tone in Bantu. InThe grammar of focus, eds.Georges Rebuschi and Laurie Tuller, 151–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.24.06hym
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.24.06hym [Google Scholar]
  53. Hyman, Larry and John Watters
    1984 Auxiliary Focus. Studies in African Linguistics15.3: 233–273.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Jelinek, Eloise
    1984 Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory2: 39–76. 10.1007/BF00233713
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00233713 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kallulli, Dalina
    2000 Direct object clitic doubling in Albanian and Greek. InBeukema, F. & den Dikken, M. (eds) Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.209–248. 10.1075/la.30.09kal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.30.09kal [Google Scholar]
  56. 2008 Clitic doubling, agreement, and information structure: The case of Albanian. InClitic doubling in the Balkan languages, eds.Dalina Kallulli and Liliane Tasmowski, 227–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.130.14kal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.130.14kal [Google Scholar]
  57. Kandybowicz, Jason
    2008The Grammar of Repetition: Nupe Grammar at the Syntax – Phonology Interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/la.136
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.136 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2013 Ways of emphatic scope-taking: From emphatic assertion in Nupe to the grammar of emphasis. Lingua128: 51–71. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.017 [Google Scholar]
  59. Keach, Camillia
    1995 Subject and Object Markers as Agreement and Pronoun Incorporation in Swahili. InTheoretical Approaches to African Linguistics. Trends in African Linguistics 1, ed.Akinbiyi Akinlabi, 109–116. Trenton, NJ: Africa World.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Kinyalolo, Kasangati
    1991 Syntactic Dependencies and the Spec-Head Agreement Hypothesis in Kilega. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.
  61. Kramer, Ruth
    2014 Clitic doubling or object agreement: An Amharic investigation. Natural Language & Linguistics Theory32: 593–634. 10.1007/s11049‑014‑9233‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9233-0 [Google Scholar]
  62. Letsholo, Rose
    2013 Object Markers in Ikalanga. Linguistic Discovery11.1: 105–128. 10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.436
    https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.436 [Google Scholar]
  63. Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig
    (eds) 2016 Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Nineteenth edition. SIL International, Dallas. Online version: www.ethnologue.com/
  64. Maho, Jouni
    2008 NUGL Online: the web version of the New Updated Guthrie List, a referential classification of the Bantu languages. Version datedMarch25th 2008 Available online atgoto.glocalnet.net/maho/bantusurvey.html
  65. Marantz, A.
    1984On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Marlo, Michael
    2009 Luyia Tonal Dialectology. Talk given at theUniversity of Nairobi, December 16.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Marlo, Michael R.
    2014 Exceptional patterns of object marking in Bantu. Studies in African Linguistics43. 85–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 2015a Exceptional properties of the reflexive in Bantu languages. Nordic Journal of African Studies24. 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Marlo, Michael
    2015b On the number of object markers in Bantu languages. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics36. 1–65. 10.1515/jall‑2015‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jall-2015-0001 [Google Scholar]
  70. Marten, Lutz and Nancy Kula
    2012 Object marking and morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies30.2: 237–253. 10.2989/16073614.2012.737603
    https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2012.737603 [Google Scholar]
  71. Marten, Lutz, Nancy Kula and Nhlanhla Thwala
    2007 Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. Transactions of the Philological Society105: 253–338. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2007.00190.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2007.00190.x [Google Scholar]
  72. Marten, Lutz and Deograsia Ramadhani
    2001 An overview of object marking in Kiluguru. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics11: 259–275.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Matushansky, Ora
    2006 Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry37:69–109. 10.1162/002438906775321184
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438906775321184 [Google Scholar]
  74. McGinnis, Martha
    2001 Phases and the syntax of applicatives. InThe Proceedings of NELS 31, Minjoo Kim and Uri Strauss (eds), 333–349. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Mutonyi, Nasiombe
    2000 Aspects of Bukusu morphology and phonology. Columbus: The Ohio State University dissertation.
  76. Neeleman, Ad, Elena Titov, Hans van de Koot, and Reiko Vermeulen
    2009 A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. InJeroen van Craenenbroek (ed.), Alternatives to Cartography, 15–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  77. Nevins, Andrew
    2011 Multiple agree with clitics: person complementarity vs omnivorous number. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory29: 939–971. 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9150‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9150-4 [Google Scholar]
  78. Nunes, Jairo
    2004 Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4241.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4241.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  79. Potts, Christopher
    2012 Conventional implicatures and expressive content. InSemantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Vol.3., eds.C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner, 2516–2536. De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Ranero Echeverría, Rodrigo
    2014 The Syntax and Semantics of Kuria /ne-/. B.A. thesis, Pomona College.
  81. Ranero, Rodrigo
    2017 Deriving an object dislocation asymmetry in Luganda. To appear in the proceedings of ACAL 47.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Richards, Norvin
    2010Uttering Trees. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262013765.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262013765.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  83. Riedel, Kristina
    2009a The syntax of object marking in Sambaa: A comparative Bantu perspective. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.
  84. 2009b Object marking in wh-questions in Bantu. InSelected Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, eds.Akinloye Ojo and Lioba Moshi, 67–76. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Rizzi, Luigi
    1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. InElements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  86. Roberts, Ian
    2010Agreement and head movement. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  87. Romero, Maribel and Chung-hye Han
    2004 On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy27: 609–658. 10.1023/B:LING.0000033850.15705.94
    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000033850.15705.94 [Google Scholar]
  88. Safir, Ken and Justine Sikuku
    2011 Lubukusu Anaphora Sketch version 3.1++. InKen Safir, ed., Afranaph Website, at URLwww.africananaphora.rutgers.edu/
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Schneider-Zioga, Patricia
    2014 Linking, Predication, & Symmetry: On the Syntax of the Linker in Kinande. InProceedings of the 32nd Annual West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds.Thomas Borer, Huilin Fang, Alfredo Garcia-Pardo, Peter Guekguezian, Brian Hsu, Charlie O’Hara, Iris Ouyang and Ulrike Steindl, 232–331. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Schwarz, Florian
    2007 Ex-situ focus in Kikuyu. InFocus strategies in African languages, eds.Enoch Aboh, Katharina Hartmann, and Malte Zimmerman, 139–160. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Sikuku, Justine
    2011 Syntactic patterns of anaphoric relations in Lubukusu. Nairobi: University of Nairobi dissertation.
  92. 2012 Comparing Reflexive and Object marking in Lubukusu. For the Proceedings of the World Congress of African Linguistics. Afranaph Technical Report #10. www.africananaphora.rutgers.edu/
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 2014 Lubukusu Data. InK. Safir, Afranaph Database, at URLwww.africananaphora.rutgers.edu/. RetrievedFebruary 15, 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Sportiche, Dominique
    1996 Clitic Constructions. In: Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, eds.Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8617‑7_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_9 [Google Scholar]
  95. Storoshenko, Dennis Ryan
    2014 The Shona Reflexive – zvi as Default Object Agreement. Talk presented at the4th International Conference on Bantu Linguistics (BANTU4): Berlin, Germany, April 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Tenenbaum, Sarah
    1977 Left- and Right-Dislocations. InHaya grammatical structure, eds.Ernest R. Byarushengo, Alessandro Duranti, and Larry M. Hyman. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Travis, Lisa
    1984 Parameters and effects of word order variation. Cambridge: MIT dissertation.
  98. Uriagereka, Juan
    1995 Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry26: 79–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. van der Spuy, Andrew
    1993 Dislocated noun phrases in Nguni. Lingua90: 335–355. 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90031‑Q
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90031-Q [Google Scholar]
  100. van der Wal, Jenneke
    2015 Bantu object clitics as defective goals. Revue Roumaine de LinguistiqueLX(2–3), 277–296.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Vikner, Sten
    1994 Scandinavian object shift and West Germanic scrambling. InStudies on Scrambling, eds.Norbert Corver & Henk van Riemsdijk, 487–517. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110857214.487
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857214.487 [Google Scholar]
  102. 2006 Object shift. InThe Blackwell Companion to Syntax Vol III, eds.Martin Everaert and Henk Van Riemsdijk, 392–436. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470996591.ch46
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch46 [Google Scholar]
  103. Wasike, Aggrey
    2007 The left periphery, wh-in-situ and A-bar movement in Lubukusu and other Bantu languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
  104. Woolford, Ellen
    2001 Conditions on object agreement in Ruwund (Bantu). InIndigenous languages (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20), ed.E. Benedicto, Amherst, MA: GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Zeller, Jochen
    2009 On clitic left dislocation in Zulu. InFocus and Topic in African languages, ed.Sonja Ermisch, 131–156. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 2012 Object Marking in isiZulu. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Studies. 30.2: 219–235. 10.2989/16073614.2012.737600
    https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2012.737600 [Google Scholar]
  107. 2015 Argument prominence and agreement: explaining an unexpected object asymmetry in Zulu. Lingua156: 17–39. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.009 [Google Scholar]
  108. Zerbian, Sabine
    2006 Expression of information structure in the Bantu language Northern Sotho. Berlin: Humboldt University dissertation.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00027.sik
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00027.sik
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Bantu , clitic doubling , clitics , Lubukusu , object marking and verum focus
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error