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
2021-10-26
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.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anagnostopoulou, Elena
    2006 Clitic doubling. InThe Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume 1, 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, eds A. 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. 10.1515/9783110804010.543
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804010.543 [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.
    [Google Scholar]
  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.
    [Google Scholar]
  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. In Bonami, 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. In P. 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. In Daniel 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  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. In Jacobs, 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. In Beukema, 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  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.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Neeleman, Ad , Elena Titov , Hans van de Koot , and Reiko Vermeulen
    2009 A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In Jeroen van Craenenbroek (ed.), Alternatives to Cartography, 15–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  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.
    [Google Scholar]
  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.
    [Google Scholar]
  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++. In Ken 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  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. In K. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  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.
    [Google Scholar]
  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.
    [Google Scholar]
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; 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