1

One of these things is not like the others: Epiphenomenal clitics in Kuria Rodrigo Ranero, Michael Diercks, and Mary Paster

Pomona College; draft date 1 July 2013

1 Introduction: An unfamiliar cliticization pattern* It is well known that in many Bantu languages it is possible to pronominalize an object with an object marker (OM) on the verb. The example in (1) comes from Kuria (Narrow Bantu E.43, spoken in Kenya and Tanzania): (1) a. n-aa-tɛ́m-ér-é ómo-gámbi1 [Kuria] FOC.1sgSA-PST-hit-PF-FV 1-king ‘I hit the king.’ b. n-aa-mó-tɛ́m-ér-e2 FOC.1sgSA-PST-1OM-hit-PF-FV ‘I hit him.’ Of particular concern has been the syntactic status of the object marker itself: whether it is the realization of a syntactic Agree relation (Riedel 2009), a pronoun that has been incorporated into the verb (Bresnan and Mchombo 1987), or an intermediate element between those two, namely, a clitic (Authors 2012, Zeller 2012).

* The first and second authors were responsible for the syntactic elicitation and analysis. The third author was mainly responsible for transcriptions and phonological analysis, but also for treatments of relevant syntax-phonology interface issues. All data for this paper were elicited in Claremont, CA, originating out of research in the Spring 2012 Field Methods class at Pomona College (and based on Diercks, Ranero, and Cramerus 2013). Our greatest thanks and appreciation go to Johnes Kitololo for his judgments and his endless patience that made this paper possible. Thanks also to the participants of ACAL at Georgetown University for their comments and feedback, and in particular to Norvin Richards, Coppe van Urk, Omer Preminger, Ruth Kramer, Michael Marlo, Brent Henderson, Patricia Schneider-Zioga and Claire Halpert for their insightful comments and critiques. 1 In the orthographic conventions we have used here, an intervocalic <g> represents a velar fricative [ɣ], an intervocalic <b> represents a bilabial fricative [β], <y> represents a palatal approximant [j], <ny> represents a palatal nasal [ɲ], <r> represents an alveolar tap [ɾ] and <r:> represents an alveolar trill [r]. Because these are (broad) phonetic transcriptions of only single sentences, punctuation and other kinds of orthographic conventions for marking sentences are not used here. High tone is marked by an acute accent on the vowel; low tone is unmarked. Ungrammatical examples are not transcribed with tone markings. Numerals indicate Bantu Noun Class markers. Gloss abbreviations are as follows: APPL = applicative, CAUS = causative, CL = clitic, DAT = dative, FUT = future, FV = final vowel, INCEP = inceptive, OM = object marker, PASS = passive, PF = perfective, PST = past, SA = subject agreement, SBJ = subjunctive, T = tense, TAM = tense/aspect/mood. 2 Though tone is not the focus of this paper, it is worth explaining a bit about the tone system here since the careful reader will have observed a tone difference on the FV of the verb in (1a) vs. (1b). As detailed in Mwita (2008) and Marlo et al (to appear), the remote past tense (the form in which most examples in the present paper appear) assigns a H tone to the first mora of the verb’s macrostem (a unit to be discussed later; in effect, the H is assigned to the first OM if any, or to the first mora of the verb root if no OMs are present). The regular phonology of the language spreads a H tone rightward to all vowels in the phrase, up to and including the penultimate mora (in some cases spreading into the FV as well; spreading to the FV may be optional, or a principle may later be discovered that predicts when spreading to the FV is allowed). If a H tone is followed by another H in the phrase, the spreading will stop one mora short of the following H, leaving a toneless mora in between that is pronounced as a low tone. These principles, along with the assumption that nouns have an underlying H tone on the initial mora of the root, suffice to account for all of the tone patterns observed in the data in this paper, except for some idiosyncratic tones on nouns/proper names that we take to be lexically specified, and a few other cases as noted.

2

As has long been a concern for studies of clitics in Indo-European languages, a relevant question is whether an OM can co-occur with a postverbal object (which we refer to as clitic/OM-doubling).3 For example, Lubukusu (Kenya) prohibits doubling an object marker with an in situ object in most contexts (Authors 2013): (2) N-a-mu-bona. (*Wekesa) [Lubukusu] 1sgSA-PST-1OM-see (*1Wekesa) ‘I saw him.’ (*I saw Wekesa) No OM doubling Multiple object markers may appear on the verb in some languages, and even double objects, with Sambaa (Tanzania) as a thoroughly documented example (Riedel 2009: 106): (3) N-za-chi-m-nka ng’wana kitabu [Sambaa] 1sgSA-pf.DJ-7OM-1OM-give 1child 7book ‘I gave the child a book.’ Multiple OM doubling These patterns of doubling OMs mirror the kinds of clitic doubling that have been reported in the Indo-European literature. As Anagnostopoulou (2006: 520) reports, Rioplatense Spanish allows clitic doubling of a direct object, and all dialects of Spanish allow clitic doubling of an indirect object, given in (4) and (5), respectively. (4) Lo vimos a Juan. [Rioplatense Spanish] Him we-saw a Juan ‘We saw Juan.’ (5) Miguelito (le) regaló un caramelo a Mafalda. [All dialects of Spanish] Miguelito CL-DAT gave a candy a Mafalda ‘Miguelito gave Mafalda a piece of candy.’ In other languages like French, however, clitic doubling is simply ruled out: (6) Jean (*lui) a donné des bonbons à Marie. [French] Jean CL-DAT has given the candies to Marie ‘Jean gave candies to Marie.’ (Anagnostopoulou 2006: 520) This brings us to Kuria, which to our knowledge diverges from any previously reported patterns of cliticization/object marking.4 As we will demonstrate in this paper, in Kuria it is possible to double an OM with an in situ object, but only in the event that an additional undoubled object marker appears outside the 3 See Riedel (2009) and Anagnostopoulou (2006) for overviews of research in the Bantu and Indo- European families, respectively. 4 Throughout the paper we use the terms clitic and object marker interchangeably (the same for cliticization and object marking). ‘Object marker’ is the term from the Bantuist tradition, but as will become clear throughout the paper, we analyze these object markers using the same mechanisms as have been used for other elements termed ‘clitics,’ and believe that they ought to be considered the same sort of syntactic element (in a broad sense, as ‘clitic’ is not a unitary theoretical notion at present). For justification on treating Kuria OMs as clitics, we refer the reader to Authors (2013).

3

doubled object marker.5 (7) omo-múrá n-aa-bá-chí-kóbéés-ír-í íchim-bíríá (*aba-iseke) 1-man FOC-1SA.PST-2OM-10OM-borrow-PF.CAUS-FV 10-money (*2-women) ‘The man lent them the money.’ (*The man lent the women the money) The facts of Kuria OMing lead us to the empirical description of Kuria clitic-doubling given in (8): (8) OM doubling in Kuria is n+1

Any doubling of an OM with an in situ object requires the presence of at least one additional object marker on the verb (which must be positioned outside the doubled OM(s)).

The main goal of the paper, then, is to describe this previously undocumented pattern and to evaluate the theoretical consequences. The main theoretical claim that we advance is that there is no analysis available where the two OMs in (7) (the doubled OM and the non-doubled OM) can arise out of identical cliticization mechanisms. In short, the patterns of OMing and OM doubling in Kuria can only be explained if multiple mechanisms for cliticization are available within the same language: one derives doubled OMs, the other derives the outermost undoubled OM. Specifically, we will follow the traditions of analysis existing in the field to claim that the mechanisms that are utilized are an agreement mechanism (Agree) and a movement mechanism (Copy+Internal Merge) that are not interdependent in all instances.

In the next section we describe Kuria OMing, providing data from monotransitives, ditransitives, and tritransitives that motivate the generalization given above in (8). In section 3 we advance our main proposal regarding the necessity of two distinct cliticization mechanisms and lay out the mechanics for Kuria cliticization. In section 4 we introduce various forms of supporting evidence and briefly discuss why some promising alternative analyses do not hold up. Section 5 concludes.

It is important to note that throughout the paper we simply assume that Kuria OMs are best analyzed as clitics, that clitic doubled objects are in fact in situ in their base position, and that OMs ought to be analyzed as clitics despite appearing internal to the verbal form. These are significant assumptions and the data and argumentation defending these assumptions are presented in Authors (2013); space reasons preclude us from presenting them here.

2 Empirical Description of OM Doubling Patterns This section lays out in detail the patterns of OM doubling in Kuria, including single- and multiple-object constructions. Section 2.1 deals with monotransitives, while sections 2.2 and 2.3 delve into ditransitive and tritransitive constructions, respectively.

5 A comment about notation: when there is one pattern to be highlighted in an example, we bold that pattern. When there are two, we bold the first and underline the second. When there are three, we add italics for the third. These annotations do not carry any analytical weight, rather are intended solely to make the data more visually accessible to the reader.

4

2.1 OM Doubling in Monotransitives In monotransitives, OM doubling a full DP object is unacceptable. Consider the data below in (9): (9) a. n-aa-tɛ́m-ér-é ómo-gámbi FOC.1sgSA-PST-hit-PF-FV 1-king ‘I hit the king.’ b. *n-aa-mo-tɛm-er-e omo-gambi FOC.1sgSA-PST-1OM-hit-PF-FV 1-king ‘I hit the king.’ Pronouns have different patterns with respect to OMing, but we reserve that discussion until section 4.1.

2.2 OM Doubling in Ditransitives Despite the lack of doubling in monotransitives, there are in fact circumstances where doubling is possible, namely, when a verb has multiple objects. The patterns in this respect become relatively complex, so the generalizations regarding OMing in ditransitives are summarized below: (10) OM Doubling in ditransitives

i. Two OMs can appear on the verb ii. The inner OM can double a postverbal object

iii. The outermost OM cannot double a postverbal object iv. No doubling is allowed when two postverbal (lexical DP) objects are present

In what follows we lay out the data that demonstrate the generalizations noted in (10). Consider first the data in (11) which show that either object can be object marked on the verb: (11) a. omo-kóró n-aa-háá-y-é ómo-óná éke-hɔ́ɔ́yɛ́rɔ́

1-elder FOC-1SA.PST-give-PF-FV 1-child 7-toy ‘The elder gave the child the toy.’

b. omo-kóró n-aa-mú-háá-y-é éke-hɔ́ɔ́yɛ́rɔ́ 1-elder FOC-1SA.PST-1OM-give-PF-FV 7-toy ‘The elder gave him the toy.’

c. omo-kóró n-aa-ké-háá-y-é ómo-óna 1-elder FOC-1SA.PST-7OM-give-PF-FV 1-child ‘The elder gave it to the child.’

5

The data below in (12) show that both of the objects can be object marked on the verb, in either order: (12) a. omo-kóró n-aa-mú-ké-háá-y-e 1-elder FOC-1SA.PST-1OM-7OM-give-PF-FV

‘The elder gave it to him.’

b. omo-kóró n-aa-ké-mú-háá-y-e 1-elder FOC-1SA.PST-7OM-1OM-give-PF-FV ‘The elder gave it to him.’

The examples in (13) show the only possible OM doubling of full DPs in two object constructions, which is only acceptable when both objects are OMed, and the object corresponding to the inner OM is doubled: (13) a. omo-múrá n-aa-kóbéés-ír-í íchim-bíríá ába-íséke

1-man FOC-1SA.PST-lend-PF-FV 10-money 2-women ‘The man lent the women money.’ b. omo-múrá n-aa-bá-chí-kóbéés-ír-í íchim-bíría 1-man FOC-1SA.PST-2OM-10OM-lend-PF-FV 10-money ‘The man lent them (the women) the money.’ c. omo-múrá n-aa-chí-bá-kóbéés-ír-í ába-íséke 1-man FOC-1SA.PST-10OM-2OM-lend-PF-FV 2-women ‘The man lent it (the money) to the women.’

It is always ungrammatical to double the object corresponding to the outer OM, as observed below in (14): (14) a. *omo-mura n-aa-ba-chi-kobees-ir-i aba-iseke 1-man FOC-1SA.PST-2OM-10OM-lend-PF-FV 2-women

b. *omo-mura n-aa-chi-ba-kobees-ir-i ichim-biria 1-man FOC-1SA.PST-10OM-2OM-lend-PF-FV 10-money Furthermore, it is also ungrammatical to OM-double a single object when both objects are present following the verb, as shown in (15): (15) *omo-mura n-aa-chi-kobees-ir-i ichim-biria aba-iseke

1-man FOC-1SA.PST-10OM-lend-PF-FV 10-money 2-women

And finally, (16) shows that it is unacceptable to double both objects: (16) *omo-koro n-aa-ba-chi-haa-y-e aba-iseke ichim-biria

1-man FOC-1SA.PST-2OM-10OM-lend-PF-FV 2-women 10-money

6

The data presented in (11)-(16) allow us to reach the following generalization regarding the only acceptable pattern of OM doubling in Kuria ditransitive constructions: (17) Ditransitive OM doubling Generalization

OM1-OM2-verb OBJ2

Therefore, it is possible to double an object in a ditransitive if the doubled object

corresponds to the inner OM and an additional (undoubled) OM is present on the verb. This pattern is also found in instrumental, benefactive, and causative ditransitives. The data in (18) show an instrumental ditransitive with identical doubling configurations:

(18) a. n-aa-ny-éér-ééy-é úmu-súrí ígi-chííko6

FOC.1sgSA-PST-drink-APPL-PF-FV 3-soup 7-spoon ‘I drank soup using the spoon.’

b. n-aa-gó-kí-ny-éér-ééy-é ígi-chííko

FOC.1sgSA-PST-3OM-7OM-drink-APPL-PF-FV 7-spoon ‘I drank it (the soup) using the spoon.’ c. n-aa-kí-gú-ny-éér-ééy-é úmu-súri FOC.1sgSA-PST-7OM-3OM-drink-APPL-PF-FV 3-soup

‘I drank the soup using it (the spoon).’ This pattern is replicated with the benefactive ditransitive below in (19): (19) a. umu-kúngú n-aa-gúr-ííy-í ómo-góógí i-nyáma 1-woman FOC-1SA.PST-buy-APPL.CAUS.PF-FV 1-butcher 5-meat ‘The woman sold the meat for the butcher.’ b. umu-kúngú n-aa-mú-gí-gúr-ííy-í i-nyáma 1-woman FOC-1SA.PST-1OM-5OM-buy-APPL.CAUS.PF-FV 5-meat ‘The woman sold the meat for him (the butcher).’ c. umu-kúngú n-aa-gé-mú-gúr-ííy-í ómo-góógi 1-woman FOC-1SA.PST-5OM-1OM-buy-APPL.CAUS.PF-FV 1-butcher ‘The woman sold it (the meat) for the butcher.’ Finally, the same pattern also arises in causative constructions. Examples of these are observed in (20): (20) a. aba-áná m-baa-mááh-ír-í ómo-óná ígi-chá 2-children FOC-2SA.PST-see-CAUS.PF-FV 1-baby 7-portrait ‘The children showed the baby the portrait.’ 6 Like in other Bantu languages, the applicative on the verb serves to introduce both benefactive objects and instruments.

7

b. aba-áná m-baa-mú-ké-mááh-ír-í ígi-chá 2-children FOC-2SA.PST-1OM-7OM-see-CAUS.PF-FV 7-portrait ‘The children showed him the portrait.’ c. aba-áná m-baa-ké-mú-mááh-ír-í ómo-óna 2-children FOC-2SA.PST-7OM-1OM-see-CAUS.PF-FV 1-baby ‘The children showed it (the portrait) to the baby.’ Versions of the examples from the paradigms in (18)-(20) that do not conform to the ditransitive n+1 OM doubling generalization in (8) are ungrammatical, following the same patterns laid out previously. We can see, therefore, that two-object verbs are unified in their OMing patterns irrespective of their particular argument structures. (21) Interim OM Doubling Generalizations (2-argument verbs)

i. 2 OMs may occur on the verb, in any order ii. At most one OM can double a postverbal object

iii. The outermost OM cannot double an object (irrespective of thematic role) iv. The inner OM can double an object (irrespective of thematic role)

2.3 OM Doubling in Tritransitives In tritransitives, an analogous pattern to the one observed for ditransitives occurs. The following generalizations arise regarding the doubling of full DPs, which we demonstrate in what follows: (22) Updated OM Doubling Generalizations

i. With 3 OMs on the verb: a. Either or both inner OMs can double postverbal objects b. The outermost OM cannot double a postverbal object

ii. With 2 OMs on the verb a. Only the inner OM can double a postverbal object b. The outermost OM cannot double a postverbal object

iii. With 1 OM on the verb a. No doubling is allowed

iv. No doubling is possible when all three postverbal arguments are present So, like 2-object verbs, the outermost OM can never double an object, but inner OMs may do so (and a single OM on the verb counts as the “outermost” OM in that description). The following is a schematic of the maximal OM doubling allowed in tritransitives: (23) Maximal possible 3-object OM doubling

OM1-OM2-OM3-verb OBJ2 OBJ3 with some additional patterns possible Consider first the data below in (24)–(25) which show that it is possible to object mark all three of the objects on the verb in any order:

8

(24) a. omo-óná n-aa-ráágír:-ííy-í ómo-kámá i-nyáámú áma-bɛ́ɛ́rɛ 1-child FOC-1SA.PST-eat.APPL-CAUS.PF-FV 1-chief 4-cat 6-milk

‘The child fed the cat milk for the chief.’

b. omo-óná n-aa-mú-gé-gá-ráágír:-ííy-i 1-child FOC-1SA.PST-1OM-4OM-6OM-eat.APPL-CAUS.PF-FV ‘The child fed it (the cat) it (the milk) for him (the chief).’

(25) OMs may occur in any order ü omoóná naa-mú-gá-gé-ráágír:ííyi ü omoóná naa-gé-mú-gá-ráágír:ííyi ü omoóná naa-gé-gá-mú-ráágír:ííyi ü omoóná naa-gá-mú-gé-ráágír:ííyi ü omoóná naa-gá-gé-mú-ráágír:ííyi

‘The child fed it (the cat) it (the milk) for him (the chief).’

It was observed in example (15) that it is ungrammatical to double a single object with both postverbal objects present in a ditransitive. Consider the examples below in (26)—(28) that show that this restriction holds in tritransitives as well, regardless of the thematic role of the doubled object: (26) Doubled Benefactee a. omoóná naa-mú-ráágír:ííyí ________ inyáámú ámabɛ́ɛ́rɛ b. *omoona naa-mu-raagir:iiyi omokama inyaamu amabɛɛrɛ (27) Doubled Causee a. omoóná naa-gé-ráágír:ííyí ómokámá ______ ámabɛ́ɛ́rɛ b. *omoona naa-ge-raagir:iiyi omokama inyaamu amabɛɛrɛ (28) Doubled Theme a. omoóná naa-gá-ráágír:ííyí ómokámá inyáámú _______ b. *omoona naa-ga-raagir:iiyi omokama inyaamu amabɛɛrɛ Moving on to constructions in which two OMs appear on the verb, an analogous pattern to the one observed in ditransitives emerges. Example (29) shows that it is possible to object mark two of the arguments and OM-double one, as long as the doubled object corresponds to the inner OM. All iterations of this pattern with respect to the ordering of OMs on the verb and the ordering of postverbal objects are grammatical: (29) omo-óná n-aa-gá-mú-ráágír:-ííy-í ómo-kámá i-nyáámú 1-child FOC-1SA.PAST-6OM-1OM-eat.APPL-CAUS.PF-FV 1-chief 4-cat ‘The child fed it (the milk) to the cat for the chief.’

9

Additionally, when three OMs appear on the verb, a series of possibilities regarding OM doubling are attested. First, it is possible to OM-double either of the objects corresponding to an inner OM, as observed below in (30)a and (30)b:7 (30) a. omo-óná n-aa-mú-gé-gá-ráágír:-ííy-í i-nyáámú

1-child FOC-1SA.PST-1OM-4OM-6OM-eat.APPL-CAUS.PF-FV 4-cat ‘The child fed the cat it (the milk) for him (the chief).’

b. omo-óná n-aa-mú-gé-gá-ráágír:-ííy-í áma-bɛ́ɛ́rɛ 1-child FOC-1SA.PST-1OM-4OM-6OM-eat.APPL-CAUS.PF-FV 6-milk ‘The child fed it (the cat) milk for him (the chief).’

Second, it is also acceptable to object mark all three objects and double the two objects corresponding to both inner OMs. This pattern is observed below in (31):8 (31) a. omo-óná n-aa-mú-gé-gá-ráágír:-ííy-í i-nyáámú áma-bɛ́ɛ́rɛ

1-child FOC-1SA.PST-1OM-4OM-6OM-eat.APPL-CAUS.PF-FV 4-cat 6-milk ‘The child fed the cat milk for him (the chief).’

b. omo-óná n-aa-mú-gé-gá-ráágír:-ííy-í áma-bɛ́ɛ́rɛ́ i-nyáámú 1-child FOC-1SA.PST-1OM-4OM-6OM-eat.APPL-CAUS.PF-FV 6-milk 4-cat ‘The child fed the cat milk for him (the chief).’

The generalization that arises from the data above is that, in all cases, only the objects corresponding to the inner OMs can be doubled—any doubling of the object corresponding to the outermost OM is ungrammatical. Consider the data in (32) which exemplify various ungrammatical patterns where the outermost OM is doubled (class 1 mu- corresponding to omokama ‘chief’ here): (32) a. *omo-ona n-aa-mu-ge-ga-raagir:-iiy-i omo-kama i-nyaamu 1-child FOC-1SA.PST-1OM-5OM-6OM-eat.APPL-CAUS.PF-FV 1-chief 5-cat b. *omoona naa-mu-ge-ga-raagir:iiyi omokama amabɛɛrɛ c. *omoona naa-mu-ge-ga-raagir:iiyi inyaamu omokama d. *omoona naa-mu-ge-ga-raagir:iiyi amabɛɛrɛ omokama e. *omoona naa-mu-ge-ga-raagir:iiyi omokama All possible orderings of OMs (and combinations of objects) in examples analogous to the ones shown in (32) are ungrammatical in the event that the outermost OM doubles a postverbal object (regardless of the thematic role of the outermost OM). As an illustration, consider the data in (33)—(34) below that show ungrammatical utterances in which the causee and theme corresponding to the outermost OM may not be doubled: 7 This pattern holds regardless of the order of the OMs. 8 Again, this is regardless of the order of the OMs on the verb.

10

(33) Outermost OM corresponds to Causee *omo-ona n-aa-ge-mu-ga-raagir:-iiy-i i-nyaamu omo-kama 1-child FOC-1SA.PST-5OM-1OM-6OM-eat.APPL-CAUS.PF-FV 5-cat 1-chief (34) Outermost OM corresponds to Theme

*omo-ona n-aa-ga-mu-ge-raagir:-iiy-i ama-bɛɛrɛ omo-kama 1-child FOC-1SA.PST-6OM-1OM-5OM-eat.APPL-CAUS.PF-FV 6-milk 1-chief Finally, and as expected at this point, doubling all three objects is always ungrammatical with any order of OMs and objects, as schematized below in (35): (35) *OM1-OM2-OM3-VERB OBJ1 OBJ2 OBJ3

2.4 Summary of General Kuria OMing Patterns In summary, the following empirical generalizations hold across Kuria transitive verbs with respect to OM doubling of full DPs: (36) Empirical Generalizations for Kuria OMing

i. Ordering of objects postverbally is irrelevant for OM doubling ii. OMs may be ordered freely on the verb (not restricted thematically)

iii. Aspects of ordering of OMs are critical for OM doubling a. The outermost OM may never double an object b. Inner OMs may double objects c. The relative ordering of inner OMs is irrelevant wrt OM doubling d. The conditions on OM doubling in Kuria are unrelated to thematic

roles We therefore characterize OM doubling of full (lexical) DPs in Kuria as conditioned by the restriction given above in (8) and repeated here: (8) OM Doubling in Kuria is n+1 Any doubling of an OM with an in situ object requires the presence

of at least one additional object marker on the verb (which must be positioned outside the doubled OM(s)).

The following sections detail an analysis that captures the range of OM doubling patterns exhibited in Kuria. It should be noted that there are additional relevant empirical patterns that intersect with the general patterns described in (36) and (8), which we tackle below in section 4. At present, though, the data described in this section suffice to form the basis of our analysis and core claims for the paper. 3 Proposal and Analysis: Two Mechanisms for Cliticization We propose that the observed cliticization and clitic doubling patterns in Kuria necessitate two distinct cliticization mechanisms being available and active in the language – an agreement-based mechanism that derives inner OMs that can double lexical objects, and the other a movement-based mechanism deriving the outermost (undoubled) OM. The following sections provide both background and justification for such an approach.

11

3.1 Background – analyses for cliticization in IE and Bantu There has been a long tradition in the Indo-European literature of treating clitics as either the result of agreement relations or the movement of a pronoun. Clitics have essentially been considered intermediate elements that adopt the behavior of one or the other of these operations in different language varieties, or in different empirical contexts.

Several proposals have advocated for a movement mechanism for clitic doubling. One of the earliest proposals is (Kayne 1975), which argued that treating clitics as a result of movement from their argument position to their clitic position could explain the complementary distribution of clitics and full NPs in French. Among other views is Uriagereka (1995), who claimed that in Romance, a doubled DP is in the Spec,DP position of a complex DP that is headed by the doubling clitic. This doubling clitic undergoes movement to a landing site F. On his view, cross-linguistic variation in clitic doubling is related to the existence of strong or weak determiners in a language and whether F is available and spelled-out. Another view is taken by Anagnostopoulou (2003) which argues based on Greek data that clitic doubling is the result of feature movement that creates an A-chain between a clitic and its corresponding doubled in situ DP. All of these approaches, while differing in many details, claim that clitics originate in an argument position and move to their surface clitic position.

Contrasting approaches treat clitic doubling as being the result of an agreement relation rather than movement. Suñer (1988) treats clitic doubling in the verbal domain as the parallel of subject-verb agreement. Similarly, Sportiche (1996) argued that clitics are actually functional heads themselves that project their own phrase and license a DP argument in their specifier position that agrees in features such as gender and number. Franco (2000) adopts a version of this approach, with clitics arising on an AgrO projection.

In a similar vein, the Bantuist tradition researching OMs has operated within a dichotomous analytical context of describing OMs as either agreement morphemes or incorporated pronouns, often traced to Bresnan and Mchombo’s (1987) seminal paper claiming a distinction between those mechanisms for Chichewa OMs. Without belaboring the details, researchers have often chosen between those analytical options in their work on OMs in Bantu languages in order to explain empirical differences between languages (cf. Keach 1995, Woolford 2001, Buell 2005, Henderson 2006, Adams 2010, Riedel 2009, among others). While we have not taken up these traditional kinds of diagnostics and analysis of OMs to this point (given the complexity of the patterns at hand), we refer the reader to Authors (2013) for the relevant diagnostics that support the analysis of Kuria OMs as clitics.

While the tradition of analyzing OMs as either agreement morphemes or incorporated pronouns has a long history, Riedel (2009) points out that these two analytical options predict a sharper distinction in OM properties than is in fact documented; the variation in OM patterns across Bantu languages in fact mirrors the kinds of cross-linguistic and cross-dialectal variation in clitic properties across Indo-European languages (for some discussion see Authors 2013, Marten, Kula, and Thwala 2007, Marten and Kula 2012, Marlo 2013). While this led Riedel to claim that all OMs are agreement morphemes (because theories of agreement leave more room to allow for the range in resulting OM patterns than does an incorporation analysis), this state of affairs led Authors (2012) to claim that OMs in Manyika (and Narrow Bantu languages more generally) are in fact clitics and should be considered (and analyzed as) the same kind of empirical phenomenon as Indo-European clitics (see Zeller 2012 as well). In short, then, while the particular kinds of analyses have been different in the Indo-European and Bantuist literatures, the spirit of the analyses have been the same—clitics/OMs are considered to be generated either

12

by movement operations (i.e. clitics are independent pronouns) or agreement operations (i.e. clitics are the result of Agree relations).

Given the wide variety of behavior observed in clitics cross-linguistically, many current approaches treat clitic doubling as a combination of both Agree and movement. Kramer (to appear) compiles a wide range of existing diagnostics to distinguish between object agreement and clitic doubling and proposes that in Amharic, clitic doubling is the result of an Agree relationship between v0 and a doubled DP which results in the object moving to Spec,vP followed by a morphosyntactic operation (m-merger with v0) that creates a complex head out of v0 and the object (see Matushansky 2006). This analysis builds on that of Harizanov (2012), who proposes that clitics in Bulgarian do not show the properties most commonly associated with cliticization via pure Agree—rather, he uses several diagnostics to conclude that clitic doubling in the language arises from movement pre-conditioned by the establishment of an Agree relationship. Clitic doubling arises then from the realization of both the head and foot of a movement chain in which the higher object is spelled-out in a phonologically reduced form of the object (arising as a clitic due to m-merger). Harizanov claims that clitic doubling resulting solely from Agree should be semantically vacuous, while the data from Bulgarian display properties of Movement pre-conditioned by Agree which results in scope and binding effects that would not exist as a result of a pure Agree process (see Anagnostopoulou 2003 for similar claims based on Greek clitics). Most importantly, Harizanov claims that the mechanism he proposes in Bulgarian is not necessarily the only clitic doubling mechanism cross-linguistically and that it would not be surprising to find a similar flavor of mechanism coupled with other kinds within a single language.

Thus, our claim that both movement and agreement are utilized in a single language to derive different kinds of clitics coincides with modern approaches to clitic doubling which treat the phenomenon as a result of multiple mechanisms in the grammar. Kuria provides empirical evidence that distinct cliticization operations may interact in a single language to give rise to a complex pattern that necessitates appealing to both mechanisms being active simultaneously. Given the variety of behavior found in clitics cross-linguistically and the equally rich number of explanations that have been proposed throughout the years, it should be unsurprising that a single language could resort to several distinct mechanisms to generate clitics. Marchis and Alexiadou (2013) advance a similar proposal in spirit, arguing that kinds of cliticization across various Indo-European languages simply cannot be explained by identical syntactic mechanisms. Our argument here from Kuria is the same, except arguing that different mechanisms for cliticization explain the different kinds of clitics that occur in the same language.

3.2 One ingredient of the analysis: the Linker head Baker & Collins (2006)—henceforth B&C— propose the existence of a projection called the Linker Phrase within vP, a projection which will play a large role in our analysis of Kuria OMing. In particular, we analyze inner (i.e. doubling) OMs as the realization of an Agree-based cliticization process on Linker heads. In this way, correlating properties between Kuria OMing and observed properties of Linkers will be relevant to motivating the use of Linkers in our analysis here.

B&C’s proposal is motivated by the existence of agreeing morphemes between vP-internal elements in Khoisan languages (e.g. Juǀ’hoansi) and in some Bantu languages, where they focus on Kinande (B&C 2006: 312).

13

(37) Kambale a-seng-er-a omwami y’- ehi langa [Kinande] 1Kambale 1SA/T-pack-APPL-FV 1chief 1.Lk 19peanuts ‘Kambale packed peanuts for the chief.’

B&C propose that the Linker only appears in constructions where multiple vP-internal elements require Case-checking.9 This is motivated in part by the lack of a Linker in constructions with only a single postverbal object; the Linker is therefore ruled out in (38)b despite its obligatory presence in (38)a (B&C 2006: 320): (38) a. Kambale a-hek-er-a omwami *(y’-) obwabu [Kinande]

1Kambale 1SA/T-carry-APPL-FV 1chief 1Lk 14drink ‘Kambale carried a drink for the chief.’ b. Kambale a-hek-a (*y’-) obwabu (*bo) Kambale 1SA/T-carry-FV 1Lk 14drink 14Lk ‘Kambale carried a drink.’ Beyond the prohibition against Linkers in montransitives, a characteristic of Linkers is that they can allow for inversion of the elements they appear between: example (39) shows the opposite order of the objects from example (37) above (B&C 2006: 314).10 (39) Kambale a-seng-er-a ehilanga hy’- omwami [Kinande]

1Kambale 1SA/T-pack-APPL-FV 19peanuts 19.Lk 1chief ‘Kambale packed peanuts for the chief.’

For these inversion effects to hold, B&C propose a parameter that Linker heads in some languages are capable of probing their entire c-command domain (i.e. are not constrained by strict c-command-based locality – the Minimal Link Condition is parameterized for these heads). Another way of framing this would be to state that Linkers appear in contexts in which their complements have been rendered equidistant, serving as a tool for providing structural asymmetry between the vP-internal constituents (Richards 2010, Schneider-Zioga, personal communication). The viability of these particular explanations of the inversion effects aside, the relevant point for us is the empirical analogy, that overt Kinande Linkers and Kuria OMs show the same effects in this regard, seemingly unaffected by structural hierarchies.

The resulting structure for Kuria ditransitives is one like in (40), where solid lines represent possible Agree relations, and dotted lines represent possible movements. The Linker projection therefore provides a syntactic position in which to locate the linker morpheme in

9 See (Schneider-Zioga 2013) for an interesting challenge to this proposal, including instances of the linker between an object and an adverbial and between an object and a manner wh-word. Richards (2012) also offers alternative analyses for the Linker in Kinande based on symmetry-breaking rather than Case-licensing. 10 Baker and Collins note that there are cross-linguistic differences with respect to the ability of linkers to facilitate inversion: Linkers in Kinande and Juǀ’hoansi allow inversion of postverbal elements whereas linkers in Hoan and Nǀuu do not. Den Dikken (2006) proposes the presence of a functional element he terms a linker in instances of predicate inversion as well, which again facilitate inversion processes. We use Baker & Collins’ approach here with the understanding that a broader understanding of these inversion-facilitating heads cross-linguistically may provide tools to reanalyze some aspects of this proposal.

14

languages that show it overtly, and also provides an analytical mechanism for the symmetrical behavior of postverbal elements in some languages.11

(40) Linker structure for benefactive verb (based on B&C)

vP Dashed arrows = Possible movement Solid lines = Possible Agree resulting

DPSUBJ v’ in doubling v LkP Lk’ Lk ApplP DPBEN Appl’ Appl0 VP V DPTHEME

While this will be spelled out in more detail in the next sections, let us briefly lay out our assumptions regarding the role of the LinkerP in Kuria with respect to the properties of object marking. We will claim that inner (doubled) OMs in Kuria are the result of Agree-based cliticization processes on Linker heads themselves: the restriction against doubling in monotransitives and the freedom of doubling any postverbal object (regardless of thematic structure) both follow from the properties of Linker heads, namely, Linkers are only present in ditransitives and tritransitives, and are capable of probing past intervening objects.12 Following a suggestion from B&C for Ju|hoansi (2006:335), we propose that Kuria tritransitives have two linker heads, explaining the possibility of two doubled OMs in those contexts (and predicting very free word order of postverbal objects, which is discussed in section 4.4).

3.3 Core proposal: there are two cliticization mechanisms One of the central components of our proposal to explain the n+1 OMing pattern in Kuria is that object markers are epiphenomenal: object markers do not all appear on the verb as a result of the same syntactic process.

The first point to make in this regard is that despite the restrictions on doubling between inner and outer OMs, there is no reason to believe that inner and outer OMs are different sorts of morphophonological elements: that is to say, object markers collectively ought to be analyzed as clitic morphemes, with the understanding that a clitic morpheme is an element that—despite its morphophonological dependence on nearby words—displays a sufficient degree of 11 See McGinnis (2001) for alternative analysis of symmetrical behavior of objects in some Bantu languages, based mainly on whether or not Applicative heads are phases or not. For reasons of space we do not take up in depth the question of whether an applicative-based analysis of Kuria symmetry behaviors is available, though some data and discussion of why the properties of object marking cannot be rooted in applicative heads is given in section 4.2. 12 Baker and Collins note a number of facts from Kinande where Linkers appear between objects and locative phrases – they conclude that Kinande locatives may have Case features that must be checked/valued. The lack of interaction of OMing processes with locatives in Kuria leads us to conclude that Kuria locatives are not active in Case-licensing processes, which is why we state the restriction here against monotransitives generally.

15

morphosyntactic independence to suggest it is different from a simple agreement morpheme. We refer the reader to Authors (2013) for the evidence and argumentation supporting this conclusion.

Despite this conclusion about the shared morphophonological properties of all Kuria OMs, the different syntactic properties (outermost OMs cannot double objects) lead us to conclude that inner OMs are derived from a different process than outer OMs, and that therefore two different cliticization mechanisms are available in Kuria. The two mechanisms, though, are (in broad strokes) highly familiar from the existing literature on cliticization: we propose that there is an Agree-based mechanism of cliticization that results in clitic doubling on Linker heads, and that there is a movement-based mechanism for cliticization that results in undoubled OMs (with respect to full lexical DPs, see section 4.1 for a discussion of pronouns and OMs). The Agree-based mechanism is familiar from existing proposals, where a probe with unvalued φ-features searches its c-command domain to find a goal, which values the features of the probing head (Chomsky 2001 and much resultant work):

(41) Agree-Based cliticization in Kuria (illustrated on Linker)

LkP Lk YP [φ:___] Y0 … XP …

[φ:val] In practice, this Agree-based cliticization relation is not mechanically distinct from a standard Agree relation; we simply claim that Agree realized on vP-internal heads in Kuria is specified morphologically (i.e. in the morphological spellout rules for Linker heads) as a clitic morpheme, and therefore does not have as restricted of a morphosyntactic distribution as pure agreement morphemes. So in the schematic in (41) the φ-features that are valued on the Lk head are spelled out as an OM morpheme, a verbal clitic. It is worth noting that there are various kinds of implementations of this Agree-based mechanism that would be viable here, and the particular formulation is not of our particular concern as much as is the comparison with the movement mechanism for cliticization.13,14

The movement-based mechanism is also familiar from various recent proposals, including Kramer (to appear), Harizanov (2012), but dating in spirit to at least Kayne (1975), with the core claim being that the clitic moves from its base position to its final position at spellout. Harizanov and Kramer both claim that movement of an object to the edge of vP results 13 One way of implementing this would be to claim that the Agree relation copies more than purely phi-features onto the probing head, accounting for the more pronominal properties of the doubling clitic, as opposed to an agreement morpheme. The specific implementation of this account does not substantively change the claims made in this paper, though, so we do not devote additional space to it here. 14 Note this morphological-specification approach is distinct from other claims of a more syntactic-based clitic-doubling operation. Many of those previous proposals were meant to equate the mechanisms of clitic doubling to A-movement, to explain the fact that doubled objects had the properties of A-traces (see Anagnostopoulou 2003, Béjar and Rezac 2003, Preminger 2011, Harizanov 2012, Kramer to appear). There is an important reason for our claiming this to be relatively simple Agree operation, as will be seen below: OM-doubled objects in Kuria show distinct properties from clitic-doubled objects in, say, Greek, suggesting that the mechanisms are not entirely identical.

16

in the higher copy of the moved object being spelled out as a clitic on the verb, doubling the lower copy of the object.15 This process necessitates compression of the object to a reduced form and creation of a complex head at v by morphological merger (cf. Matushansky 2006).16 Our proposal is similar: following Dechaine and Wiltschko (2002), we claim that Kuria undoubled OMs are merged into argument position as a reduced structure, a φP instead of a full DP or D head. Cliticization by this mechanism consists of movement of φP to the edge of the vP phase, followed by morphological merger of the φP with v0 resulting in a complex head at v0.

(42) Movement-based cliticization

vP v0 φP vP φ v0 v0 … φP …

Note here that this process is not identical to Harizanov’s and Kramer’s accounts of Bulgarian and Amharic, respectively, which they claim derived clitic-doubling by moving a full DP to Spec, vP, which is then reduced to clitic and m-merged to form a complex head with v. Kuria crucially lacks the ability to reduce a full lexical DP that is shifted to Spec, vP to a complex (cliticized) head at v0 via morphological merger, explaining the fact that monotransitives do not allow doubling of a full DP, so this mechanism is not available in Kuria to derive clitic doubling the way it can in Bulgarian and Amharic (see Authors 2013 for a similar proposal to explain the lack of clitic doubling with any object markers in Lubukusu).

3.4 The derivation of the n+1 effect In this section we put together the core proposals of the preceding sections (doubled OMs arise on linker heads, inner and outermost OMs are derived via different cliticization processes) in order to demonstrate why these mechanisms are necessary to account for the Kuria OMing patterns. Recall from (8) above that Kuria OMing occurs in a pattern that we referred to as n+1: (8) OM doubling in Kuria is n+1 Any doubling of an OM with an in situ object requires the presence

of at least one additional object marker on the verb (which must be positioned outside the doubled OM(s)).

This was motivated by the array of facts laid out in section 2, including the lack of OM-doubling of full DPs in monotransitives and the n+1 effect that emerged in ditransitives and tritransitives. Our claim is that inner OMs that double DP objects are the result of Agree relations initiated by Linker heads. Outer, undoubled OMs are the result of movement of a φP to the edge of the vP phase. The obligatory undoubled outermost OM arises because the Agree-based doubling

15 This is also a suggested (but non-adopted) analysis in Anagnostopoulou (2003). 16 Both Harizanov (2012) and Kramer (to appear) claim that movement of the object is preceded by Agree with v; we eschew this assumption for cliticization in Kuria, for reasons that will become clear as we move on).

17

operation creates an intervention effect that restricts v0 from Case-licensing an additional postverbal object. 3.4.1 Doubling with two full DPs Consider for a moment the derivation of a basic causative ditransitive (which, for the purposes of this paper, we simply represent with two vPs.) In example (44), there is no cliticization or doubling: (43) aba-áná m-baa-mááh-ír-í ígi-chá ómo-óná 2-children FOC-2SA.PST-see-CAUS.PF-FV 7-portrait 1-baby ‘The children showed the baby the portrait.’ (44)

vP Dashed arrow = movement Solid arrows = Agree relations

DPSUBJ v’ v LkP [Case] DPTHEME Lk’ Lk vP [Case] DPCAUSEE v’ v VP V DPTHEME

In this instance, the lower theme DP is raised to Spec, LkP, and v0 and Lk0 both probe their c-command domains and license the object local to them: Lk0 licenses the lower CAUSEE and v0 licenses the raised THEME. Note that the satisfaction of the EPP on the Lk0 head is ordered before Case probes, so the DP that satisfies the EPP on Lk0 is distinct from the DP that Lk0 licenses. We assume that instances where there are no OMs on the verb at all are instances where φ-features are not present on Lk0 heads, and one of the DPs is licensed by v0 and another by Lk0.17

Let us now look at a case in which doubling occurs. In ditransitive constructions, the Linker can enter into an Agreement relation with either of the two DPs. The realization of this agreement operation is a clitic on the Linker head. Also as a result of this Agree relation, the object that is the Goal of that Agree relation raises to Spec, LinkerP (per B&C). (Note, this represents a different ordering of feature satisfaction from the non-doubling instances above, where EPP was satisfied prior to any probing.) Our claim is that when an Agreement relation occurs between a Linker and an object, that object is deactivated as a Goal and cannot participate

17 Note that in this instance there is a sort of inverse Case filter effect where probing on v and Lk is initiated by valued Case features, as we assume that there are no φ-features on v0. This is not the only analytical option, as it could simply be that v is a φ-probe but has no morphological spellout (as is often assumed for English). Both approaches are equivalent for our purposes, which is that OMs cannot arise via Agree with v alone (hence the lack of OM-doubling in monotransitives).

18

û

in any additional Agree relations.18 As a result, a defective intervention effect occurs: the derivation crashes because the remaining (lower) object cannot be licensed by v19. This explains why doubling a single object and having two overt DPs is ungrammatical—the lower non-doubled DP cannot be Case licensed.

(45) *omo-mura n-aa-chi-kobees-ir-i ichim-biria aba-iseke

1-man FOC-1SA.PST-10OM-lend-PF-FV 10-money 2-women Intended: ‘The man lent the money to the women.’

(46) OM doubling: defective intervention in probing by v°

vP Dashed arrows = Possible movement Solid lines = Possible Agree resulting

DPSUBJ v’ in doubling v LkP DPTHEME Lk’ Lk CausP OM DPCAUSEE Caus’ Caus0 VP V [OM[DPTHEME]]

Consider now examples in which doubling is licit, namely, when there is an additional undoubled OM outside the doubled OM. We claim that the inner OM that doubles an object arises via Agree: as in the preceding (failed) derivation above, φ-features in this instance are present on the Lk0 head. Also as above, Linkers are not subject to MLC effects, so in (47) Lk0 probes and finds the THEME (ichimbiria ‘money’) and the THEME raises to Spec,LkP to satisfy the EPP. We saw above that a lower full DP would be left unlicensed due to a defective intervention effect, so for the derivation to converge the remaining lower object must be merged as a φP (ba) that is not subject to the same Case licensing restrictions as a full DP (cf. Dechaine and Wiltschko 2002). Therefore, even though the Agree relation between the Lk0 and the THEME creates an intervention effect that disables the ability of v0 to Case-license an object, the presence of φP as the second object argument allows the derivation to elude a Case-licensing failure. As laid out in our discussion of the movement mechanism for cliticization above, the φP object raises directly to the edge of vP and undergoes m-merger with v resulting in cliticization to the verbal form. (This is similar to an A-movement in this respect, simply moving directly to

18 It is important to note that this analysis has interesting consequences for theories of Case and agreement in Bantu languages more generally – we refer the reader to section 5 for discussion of the relevant work. 19 Notice that this intervention effect is the exact opposite of the one proposed for Greek and Sambaa—in those instances, doubling an object permits the doubling of a second one; in Kuria, doubling an object blocks doubling of a lower object.

19

û

the edge of a phase.) This movement mechanism results in the outermost (undoubled) OM and therefore gives rise to the n+1 effect: (47) omo-múrá n-aa-bá-chí-kóbéés-ír-í íchim-bíría

1-man FOC-1SA.PST-2OM-10OM-lend-PF-FV 10-money ‘The man lent them (the women) the money.’

(48) OM doubling: defective intervention in probing by v°

vP Dashed line = movement Solid arrow = attempted Agree

DPSUBJ v'

ϕPCAUSEE v’ v LkP DPTHEME Lk’ Lk CausP OM ϕPCAUSEE Caus’ Caus0 VP V [OM[DPTHEME]]

Therefore, whenever an inner OM doubles an object, the lower object within vP is unable to be Case-licensed and therefore cannot be realized with a full DP, instead only occurring as a reduced structure, φP, which does not require Case. φP is stipulated to raise to the edge of the phase and undergo m-merger to cliticize after moving to that position. While φPs can resort to this mechanism, full DPs are unable to do so. As mentioned above, Kuria does not have a mechanism for reducing a full DP in the edge of vP to a pronominal copy, a mechanism which is proposed by Kramer (to appear) and Harizanov (2012) to account for clitic doubling in Amharic and Bulgarian respectively. A full DP is not able to cliticize or double through the movement mechanism that is available for φPs—a full DP necessitates Agreement with a Linker in order to result in the realization of an object marker. Therefore the presence of a defective intervention effect from a previous Agree relation necessitates that a lower argument be merged as a φP as a strategy for avoiding a Case-licensing failure. This φP in this way is realized as the outermost (undoubled) OM in the n+1 effect.20

20 Space prohibits as full of a discussion of this as it deserves, but there is at least one alternative analysis (suggested to us by Omer Preminger) that is promising enough to merit some attention here. The basic idea is that perhaps doubling is in principle always possible in Kuria by spelling out two copies of A-chains involving the objects, but the outermost object marker correlates with the highest object, and there is an anti-locality constraint that prohibits spelling out both copies of a chain that are too close to each other (perhaps formalized in terms of spellout domains). As will be seen below in section 4.1, outermost OMs can double pronouns (just not lexical DPs) suggesting that a non-violable prohibition against the outermost OM doubling an object will not hold up.

20

3.4.2 Analyses for other object marking contexts The discussion to this point has focused on the derivation in ditransitives, but leaves open

some questions about monotransitives and tritransitives, which we will address here. First, let us make explicit some of our basic assumptions in the preceding section about v0 and the Linker: we assume that v0 does not have φ-features to probe and Agree with an object, while the Linker probes for both Case and φ-features.21 Unlike v0, however, the Linker provides a mechanism through which full DPs can double. Our analysis therefore makes predictions for the possible doubling of full DPs in monotransitive and tritransitive constructions.

In monotransitives, there is no Linker projection and v cannot enter into an Agree relation with an object (lacking φ-features of its own). Therefore, there is no mechanism through which a full DP may be doubled by an OM in a monotransitive. In single object constructions with a pronominalized object, the undoubled OM arises when it is base generated as a φP that moves to the edge of vP and cliticizes through m-merger. Note however, that in constrast to full DPs, pronouns can be doubled in monotransitives. A detailed discussion on this phenomenon is provided in section 4.1, along with evidence that the patterning of pronouns follows from the availability of two distinct mechanisms for doubling.

For tritransitives, our analysis makes clear predictions as well. Recall the ditransitive pattern: if two OMs are marked on the verb, only the object corresponding to the inner OM may be doubled (the n+1 effect)— doubling a DP corresponding to a single OM and doubling both DPs are both ungrammatical. In tritransitives, the presence of an additional object argument predicts that two Linkers are present (following B&C’s analysis for Juǀ’hoansi). As such, we predict that the n+1 effect should evidence itself in tritransitives as well. Indeed, the data presented in section 2.3 show the exact pattern we expect from the existence of two Linkers in three object constructions. Whenever an object marker is doubled, at least one additional undoubled object marker is necessary for the construction to be acceptable. Recall, however, that it is also possible for there to be 3 OMs on the verb and for both inner OMs to be doubled. This is exactly what is expected on this analysis, as the inner OMs are the realization of Agree relations on the two Lk heads, but this results in a defective intervention effect such that the remaining lower argument cannot be Case licensed and can only be realized as a φP that cliticizes via the movement mechanism for cliticization.22

We can therefore see that the two Linkers give rise to an expanded range of doubling possibilities which mirrors the discussion of the ditransitive case—expanded to include a second Linker of course. Even though we won’t illustrate the tritransitive cases in detail, the n+1 effect for doubling full DPs in such constructions follows naturally from the availability of two distinct mechanisms for cliticization.

One last situation that we have not dealt with for multiple object verbs is where there is simply some number of OMs on the verb, but no doubling at all. This is an instance where the analysis that we’ve offered here overdetermines the facts somewhat; undoubled OMs may in principle arise on the verb by one of two mechanisms, either agreement on a Lk head with a pro 21As mentioned above, an alternative is that v simply does not have a corresponding morphological spellout to realize the Agree relation that occurs. Either way, Agree between v and a DP object is insufficient to realize an object marker. 22 The higher of the two Lk heads in a tritransitive is capable of circumventing the defective intervention effect by the same mechanism that it circumvents standard intervention effects, namely that DPs locative in the complement of a Lk head are equidistant for the purposes of probing. While this certainly continues to be a major issue for research (e.g. Richards 2010, Schneider-Zioga 2013), explaining the apparent suspension of MLC effects with Linkers is beyond the scope of the current paper.

21

object, or by movement of a φP (or multiple φPs) to the edge of vP, where they undergo m-merger to cliticize onto the verb. The overdetermination is a necessary consequence of the analysis, and while it is not particularly surprising, it is also not clear to us whether this makes any empirical predictions which would allow us to determine which OMs are derived via agreement, and which via movement. At present we leave this as an issue for future research.

4 Evaluating the proposal: Additional evidence What we have laid out to this point, then, is a situation where there are two distinct mechanisms for cliticization in Kuria: one an Agree-based mechanism, one a movement mechanism characterized by direct movement of a case-less φP to the edge of a phase. In order to implement this analysis, we have proposed that v0 and Lk0 are Case-licensing heads, but only Lk0 is a φ-probe that is capable of triggering Agree-based cliticization. Therefore, for tritransitives, we proposed that there were multiple LkPs present that explain the multiple doubled OMs that are possible. In this section, then, we will return to the empirical side and offer some additional OMing patterns that provide support for various components of our proposal here.

4.1 Pronouns as the exception that proves the rule We’ve mentioned at points before that pronouns are exceptional with respect to their

doubling patterns. As we will show here, these exceptional patterns are in fact predicted by the mechanisms for cliticization that we’ve proposed. Doubling an object in monotransitives is impossible with lexical DPs, but is in fact possible with pronouns:

(49) m-baa-mó-mááh-ér-é wɛ

FOC-2SA.PST-1OM-see-PF-FV 3sg ‘They saw him.’

Recall that there is no Linker in monotransitives, explaining the lack of doubling with lexical DP objects. However, a pronoun is able to resort to movement to the edge of vP followed by m-merger in order to double – we therefore claim that these independent pronouns are simply non-cliticized φPs. Doubling of pronouns is an instance of pronouncing both copies of the movement chain, one in its base position, one a complex head with v (via a linearization algorithm along the lines of that offered by Nunes 2004). As stated before, Kuria does not have a mechanism for reducing a full DP to a pronominal copy as proposed by Kramer (to appear) and Harizanov (2012) for Amharic and Bulgarian. A full DP is not able to double through this movement mechanism, because even if a copy of the DP object is merged into Spec,vP it cannot undergo m-merger with v. Doubling of a lexical DP object therefore necessitates Agree(ment) with a Linker. Consider now the data below that show that it is also possible to double two pronouns in ditransitives: (50) n-aa-kó-mó-háá-y-é u:ɛ́ wɛ

FOC.1sgSA-PST-2sg.OM-1OM-give-PF-FV 2sg 3sg ‘I gave you him.’ When two pronouns are the objects of a ditransitive, one may be doubled via Agreement

with the Linker, while the other may be doubled via the movement mechanism. The outer OM is the product of the movement mechanism, and the inner OM is the product of the Agree followed by movement mechanism. The outermost OM is again able to double the pronoun because only

22

pronouns can be doubled via the movement mechanism as multiple spellout of the single movement chain (pronouns being already reduced forms that can undergo m-merger with v).

These patterns are therefore interesting for our purposes because the movement mechanism for cliticization does allow for doubling in principle, presuming that the syntactic object moved to Spec,vP is small enough to undergo m-merger. A crucial set of examples of pronominal objects provides evidence for the two distinct cliticization mechanisms. Example (51)a shows that the outermost OM can double an in situ object only if said object is a pronoun, while (51)b shows that the outermost OM can never double an in situ full DP, even if the other object argument is a pronoun:

(51) a. n-aa-mó-ké-háá-y-é wɛ́ ége-tábo FOC.1sgSA-PST-1OM-7OM-give-APPL.PF-FV 3sg 7-book ‘I gave him a book.’ b. *n-aa-ke-mo-haa-y-e wɛ ege-tabo FOC.1sgSA-PST-7OM-1OM-give-APPL.PF-FV 3sg 7-book

In principle it would be possible to attribute the exceptional properties of pronominal objects with respect to OM-doubling as a free license, that pronominal objects simply negate the n+1 effect somehow. This is clearly not the case, however, as outer OMs are still special – only pronouns may be doubled by an outermost OM. (51)b attempts to double a lexical DP with the outermost OM, but the result is ungrammaticality—if the pronoun doubles through the Linker mechanism to be the inner OM (given that the Linker can enter into an Agreement relation with either object), then the remaining full DP is left unlicensed and unable to resort to the movement mechanism for doubling. This proposal captures the empirical evidence that shows doubling patterns in ditransitive constructions where one object is a pronoun (which is not subject to Case licensing restrictions) and full DPs (which are subject to such restrictions).

What we seen from pronouns, then, is that because they are smaller structures (φPs), they are themselves capable of undergoing m-merger like outermost OMs are. Pronouns are therefore exceptional instances where doubling is possible in instances where it is otherwise ruled out.

4.2 The Doubling Effects Are from LkPs and not ApplPs A motivating factor in centering doubling effects on Linker heads is that these heads have been proposed to exist precisely in contexts with more than a single transitive object, therefore explaining the lack of doubling in monotransitive contexts (Baker and Collins 2006, Den Dikken 2006, Richards 2010, Schneider-Zioga 2013). A possible alternative analysis, however, is to attribute these effects to the heads themselves that introduce new arguments (e.g. causative and applicative heads). But the availability of doubling cannot be attributed to the properties of these argument-introducing heads, given that it is ungrammatical to double an object in transitive constructions that have been derived from intransitive verbs via an applicative or causative. Consider the causative example below in (52): (52) a. n-aa-bíríngít-ír-í íri-gɛ́ɛ́na

FOC.1sgSA-PST-roll-CAUS.PF-FV 5-stone ‘I made the stone roll.’

b. *n-aa-ri-biringit-ir-i iri-gɛɛna

FOC.1sgSA-PST-5OM-roll-CAUS.PF-FV 5-stone

23

The same pattern is attested for benefactive applicatives as well, as shown below in (53): (53) a. n-aa-tóóm-ééy-é Wɛ́ɛgɛ́sa

FOC.1sgSA-PST-jump-APPL.PF-FV 1Wegesa ‘I jumped for Wegesa.’

b. *n-aa-mo-toom-eey-e Wɛɛgɛsa

FOC.1sgSA-PST-1OM-jump-APPL.PF-FV 1Wegesa If it were the properties of Caus0 and Appl0 heads themselves that facilitated doubling of an OM with a postverbal object (as opposed to the Linker), we would expect in these contexts that it would be possible to OM-double a postverbal lexical DP. But this is clearly not possible, suggesting that LkPs are the preferable solution here, as LkPs are hypothesized to only be present when there are multiple postverbal objects.

4.3 The Predictions of Linker Phrases If indeed one of the cliticization mechanisms in Kuria is an Agree relation between the Lk0 and a DP that requires Case licensing, this makes several predictions regarding the behavior of DP objects. If Kuria Linker Phrases are not subject to the MLC (like Kinande and Juǀ’hoansi, see Baker and Collins 2006), this predicts a high degree of symmetry between postverbal objects—recall that linkers are precisely the mechanism that implements inversion of postverbal elements in languages that allow it (Baker and Collins 2006, Den Dikken 2006).

For our concerns here, this predicts that there should be completely free word ordering of postverbal objects, both in ditransitive and tritransitive constructions. This also predicts that any object should be able to be the derived subject of the passive (as inversion by linkers allows for additional A-movement). These predictions are upheld in Kuria, as the next two sections show.

4.4 Free argument order postverbally In ditransitive constructions, there is free ordering of both postverbal arguments: (54) a. omo-kóró n-aa-háá-y-é ómo-óná éke-hɔ́ɔ́yɛ́rɔ́

1-elder FOC-1SA.PST-give-PF-FV 1-child 7-toy ‘The elder gave the child the toy.’

b. omo-kóró n-aa-háá-y-é éke-hɔ́ɔ́yɛ́rɔ́ ómo-óna

1-elder FOC-1SA.PST-give-PF-FV 7- toy 1-child ‘The elder gave the child the toy.’

We proposed earlier that tritransitives have two linker phrases (accounting for potentially two doubled OMs); this contrasts with Kinande, which Baker and Collins claim has only a single linker even in tritransitives. Their proposal is based on the fact that inversion of only one object is possible in Kinande, facilitated by movement to Spec, LkP – tritransitives don’t show completely free order. Our analysis of two LkPs in tritransitives in Kuria, however, predicts that in tritransitive constructions there should be completely free word order of postverbal objects: (55) shows that this is in fact the case.

24

(55) omo-óná n-aa-ráágír:-ííy-í ómo-kámá i-nyáámú áma-bɛ́ɛ́rɛ 1-child FOC-1SA.PST-eat.APPL-CAUS.PF-FV 1-chief 4- cat 6-milk ‘The child fed the cat milk for the chief.’

ü omoóná naaráágír:ííyí ómokámá ámabɛ́ɛ́rɛ́ inyáámu ü omoóná naaráágír:ííyí inyáámú ómokámá ámabɛ́ɛ́rɛ ü omoóná naaráágír:ííyí inyáámú ámabɛ́ɛ́rɛ́ ómokáma ü omoóná naaráágír:ííyí ámabɛ́ɛ́rɛ́ ómokámá inyáámu ü omoóná naaráágír:ííyí ámabɛ́ɛ́rɛ inyáámú ómokáma

These word order facts are consistent with the analysis set forward here that the mechanism that facilitates OM doubling is the linker, the same head that has been proposed to facilitate inverted word order of postverbal arguments.

4.5 Passivization of any object The same lines of argumentation apply to passivization: symmetrical behavior of objects created by linkers extends the issue of which arguments can be promoted to subject in a passive. As predicted by the availability of a LkP in ditransitive constructions, either of the postverbal objects in Kuria can be passivized, as observed below in (56): (56) a. Mokámí n-aa-kéb-ééy-é úmu-rúgí íri-íkó 1Mokami FOC-1SA.PST-cut-APPL.PF-FV 1-cook 5-fruit ‘Mokami cut the fruit for the cook.’ b. umu-rúgí n-aa-kéb-ééy-w-é íri-íkó (ná Mokámi) 1-cook FOC-1SA.PST-cut-APPL.PF-PASS-FV 5-fruit (by 1Mokami) ‘The cook had the fruit cut for him.’ c. iri-íkó n-dee-kéb-éé-y-w-é úmu-rúgi (na Mokámi) 5-fruit FOC-5SA.PST-cut-APPL.PF-PASS-FV 1-cook (by 1Mokami) ‘The fruit was cut for the cook.’ Additionally, any of the three postverbal arguments can be passivized in three object constructions, as expected if two LkPs are available. This is observed below in (57): (57) a. i-nyáámú y-aa-ráágír:-ííy-w-í ómo-kámá áma-bɛ́ɛ́rɛ23 4-cat FOC.4SA-PST-eat.APPL-CAUS.PF-PASS-FV 1-chief 6-milk ‘The cat was fed milk on behalf of the chief.’ b. omo-kámá n-aa-ráágír:-ííy-w-í i-nyáámú áma-bɛ́ɛ́rɛ 1-chief FOC-1SA.PST-eat.APPL-CAUS.PF-PASS-FV 4-cat 6-milk ‘The chief had the cat be fed milk.’

23 The nasal FOC prefix is deleted in these instances; it appears to be a general morphophonological rule that the FOC morpheme is deleted preceding the palatal glide, though we have not investigated the extent to which this is a wholly general phonological rule or whether it is restricted to particular morphological contexts.

25

c. ama-bɛ́ɛ́rɛ́ n-gaa-ráágír:-ííy-w-í ómo-kámá i-nyáámu24 6-milk FOC-6SA.PST-eat.APPL-CAUS.PF-PASS-FV 1-chief 4-cat ‘The milk was fed to the cat for the chief.’ What we see, then, is that both the passive facts and the word order facts are consistent with the analysis that Kuria contains two LkPs that are exempt from MLC effects, following Baker and Collins (2006). 5 Conclusions

5.1 Summary of Evidence and Claims With respect to our empirical findings, we have shown that Kuria shows an n+1 effect for OM doubling: any doubled OMs must co-occur with at least one additional outermost un-doubled OM. This pattern is irrespective of thematic roles: OMs and postverbal objects may be freely ordered. The pattern holds up as a description of the general constraints on monotransitives, ditransitive, and tritransitives, and a variety of other smaller patterns were described relating to these main concerns as well. With regards to the analysis of Kuria OMs as clitics, rather than agreement affixes or incorporated pronouns, we refer the reader to Authors (2013) for ample discussion and evidence. We have also advanced several theoretical claims. The overarching and most generalizable claim is that multiple mechanisms for cliticization may be present an active in the same language (and the same sentence). We claimed that OM-doubling of lexical objects is caused by an Agree relationship between a Lk head and the DP object, and that the n+1 effect is caused by the loss of the ability to Case-license an object in the context of OM-doubling, explained by a defective intervention effect triggered by the OM-doubled object. The restrictions against doubling in monotransitives, and the flexibility of doing so in ditransitives and tritransitives, is attributed to the presence or absence of Linker heads.

5.2 Questions for Future Research As in any joint empirical/theoretical study of a relatively new empirical domain, a number of issues remain unsettled that will certainly impact a complete analysis of Kuria OMs, but due to space constraints must be left for future research.

First is that the precise discourse conditions for cliticization are still undetermined for Kuria. It is well-documented that information structure constrains the availability of clitic-doubling, but this paper focused solely on the grammatical constraints in neutral discourse contexts. Additionally, initial evidence has pointed to interesting patterns of interaction of cliticization with A’-extraction and A-movement of objects, but the evidence is still unsettled and further research is necessary to clarify the empirical patterns. In general, more diagnostics of the right-edge of vP would be useful supporting evidence as well, but the relatively free word order vP-internally makes it difficult to yield clear (syntactic) diagnostics of the right edge of vP. More research on the mechanisms and results of word order flexibility within vP would likely be very fruitful in this regard. Beyond Kuria-specific concerns, this analysis raises many important questions for recent research on Case and agreement in Bantu languages. It is well known that in many instances in Bantu languages, DPs do not become inactive after an Agree relation (Carstens 2001, 2011, 24 The nasal prefix on the verb here is subject to nasal place assimilation and is realized as [ŋ]. Nasal place assimilation applies to all instances of the FOC prefix; we follow orthographic convention in representing it as ‘n’ before [g].

26

Carstens and Diercks 2013, among many others). In addition, many Bantu languages do not show the expected distributions of DPs as predicted by Case Theory, leading some to propose that Bantu languages do not have familiar Case requirements (Diercks 2012, Harford 1985), or at least that the Case-licensing conditions of many Bantu languages are subject to particular constraints (Baker 2003, Halpert 2012, Carstens and Mletshe 2013, among many others). In contrast, our analysis relies both on the presence of Case-licensing and the availability of deactivation (hence, defective intervention) effects. This is at present a very active area of research, with a current domain of research being whether there are in fact different licensing requirements within and external to vP (cf. the opposing approaches of Halpert 2012 and Carstens and Mletshe 2013). It is beyond the scope of this paper to fully engage with the consequences of our proposals for the current research on Case and agreement within Bantu syntax circles, but our analyses certainly bear on the work being done in those domains and future research must clearly include deeper engagement between the properties of object marking and theories of Case-licensing in Bantu (in Kuria specifically but also more broadly in other languages). References Author(s): various cited papers authored and co-authored by each of this paper’s authors have been removed for the purposes of review. Adams, Nicki. 2010. The Zulu ditransitive verb phrase. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics.

Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2006. Clitic doubling. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax,

eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 519-581. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Baker, Mark. 2003. Agreement, dislocation, and partial configurationality. In Formal approaches to function grammar, ed. Andrew Carnie et al. John Benjamins. Baker, Mark and Chris Collins. 2006. Linkers and the internal structure of vP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 307-354. Béjar, Susana and Milan Rezac. 2003. Person Licensing and the Derivation of PCC

Effects. In Romance Linguistics: Theory and Acquisition, eds. Ana Teresa Perez- Leroux and Yves Roberge, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Béjar, Susana and Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 35-73. Bresnan, Joan and Sam Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa.

Language 63. 741-782. Buell, Leston. 2005. Issues in Zulu morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA. Carstens, Vicki. 2001. Multiple agreement and Case deletion. Syntax 4:147–163. Carstens, Vicki. 2011. Hyperactivity and hyperagreement in Bantu. Lingua 121:721–741. Carstens, Vicki and Michael Diercks 2013. Agreeing How? Implications for Theories of

Agreement and Locality. Linguistic Inquiry 44.2: 179-237. Carstens, Vicki and Loyiso Mletshe. 2013.Implications of Xhosa expletive constructions

for Bantu Case and flavors of T and v. Ms, University of Missouri and University of Western Cape.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kan Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge: MIT Press.

27

Déchaine, Rose-Marie and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33.3: 409-442.

Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion and Copulas. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Diercks, Michael. 2012. Parameterizing Case: Evidence from Bantu. Syntax 15.3: 253- 286.

Franco, Jon. 2000. Agreement as a Continuum: The case of Spanish pronominal clitics. In Clitic Phenomena in European Languages, eds. Frits Beukema and Marcel den Dikken, 147-190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Halpert, Claire. 2012. Argument licensing and agreement in Zulu. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Harizanov, Boris. To appear. Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface: A-movement and morphological merger in Bulgarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.

Harford Perez, Carolyn. 1985. Aspects of complementation in three Bantu languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Henderson, Brent. 2006. The syntax and typology of Bantu relative clauses. Urbana‐ Champaign: University of Illinois dissertation.

Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Keach, Camillia. 1995. Subject and Object Markers as Agreement and Pronoun Incorporation in Swahili. In Theoretical Approaches to African Linguistics. Trends in African Linguistics 1, ed. Akinbiyi Akinlabi, 109-116. Trenton, NJ: Africa World.

Kramer, Ruth. To appear. Clitic doubling or object agreement: An Amharic investigation. Natural Language & Linguistics Theory.

Marchis, Mihaela and Artemis Alexiadou. 2013. The syntax of clitics revisited: Two types of clitics. Lingua 127: 1-13.

Marlo, Michael R. 2013. On the number of object markers in Bantu languages. Ms, University of Missouri.

Marlo, Michael R., Leonard Chacha Mwita, and Mary Paster. To appear. Problems in Kuria H tone assignment. NLLT.

Marten, Lutz and Nancy Kula. 2012. Object marking and morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30.2: 237-253.

Marten, Lutz, Nancy Kula and Nhlanhla Thwala. 2007. Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. Transactions of the Philological Society 105: 253-338. Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37:69–

109. McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. Linguistic

Variation Yearbook 1: 105-146. Mwita, Chacha. 2008. Verbal tone in Kuria. Los Angeles: University of California

Ph.D. dissertation. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Linguistic Inquiry

Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. Doctoral Dissertation,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

28

Rezac, Milan. 2003. The fine structure of cyclic Agree. Syntax 6: 156-182. Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering Trees. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press Riedel, Kristina. 2009. The syntax of object marking in Sambaa: a comparative

Bantu perspective (LOT Dissertation Series 213). Utrecht: LOT. Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2013. The linker re-examined: Breaking symmetry. Ms,

California State University, Fullerton. Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic Constructions. In: Phrase Structure and the

Lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Sportiche, Dominique. 1998. Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure: Subjects,

Agreement,Case and Clitics. London/New York: Routledge. Suñer, Margarita (1988). The Role of Agreement in Clitic-Doubled Constructions.

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 391– 434. Uriagereka, Juan. 1995a. Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western

Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–124. Woolford, Ellen. 2001. Conditions on object agreement in Ruwund (Bantu). In

Indigenous languages (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20), ed. E. Benedicto, Amherst, MA: GLSA.

Zeller, Jochen. 2012. Object Marking in isiZulu. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Studies. 30.2: 219-235.