Advertisement

Doubled clitics are pronouns

Amharic objects (and beyond)
Article

Abstract

Controversy and uncertainty have plagued the question of whether “object markers” (OMs) are object pronouns cliticized to the verb or realizations of object agreement. Using data from Amharic, we address this question from a new perspective. Specifically, we claim that Amharic OMs should be analyzed as clitics because they are unable to double nominals that are quantified, anaphoric, or contain a variable bound by a quantifier. These restrictions can be derived from familiar principles of grammar—the Weak Crossover condition and the Binding theory—if and only if the OM is taken to be a pronoun (D) adjoined to v at LF. We then explain in terms of syntactic structure why these OMs can double even nonreferential DPs in experiencer subject constructions, whereas they cannot double theme arguments in unaccusatives or passives. Finally, we consider whether our analysis provides a diagnostic that distinguishes pronominal clitics from agreement morphemes across languages. OMs in Greek, Bulgarian, and Spanish seem to work broadly like Amharic, confirming that they are pronominal clitics. In contrast, OMs in Burushaski and Sambaa behave like agreement, even though certain other putative diagnostics suggest they might be clitics. We thus confirm that both object clitics and object agreement exist.

Keywords

Amharic Clitic doubling Object agreement Weak crossover Clitics Pronouns 

Notes

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, endless thanks to the many consultants who made this work possible, especially our Amharic consultants (Meriem Tikue, Mengistu Amberber, Girma Demeke, Mehret Tadesse, Mahi Megra, and Yetnayet Lemma) but also those who helped us with other languages: Elena Anagnostopoulou, Hans Broekhuis, José Camacho, Liliana Sanchez, Todor Koev, and Gisli Harðarson. Many thanks also to generous colleagues who we discussed this work with, including, but not limited to, Ken Safir, Simon Charlow, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Jenneke van der Wal, and Michael Diercks. Thanks also to Lydia Felice for assistance in the final preparation of the manuscript. Portions of this work were presented at a colloquium talk at McGill University, and we thank the audience there for helpful feedback. Finally, many thanks to three anonymous reviewers and the editor for deeply engaging with this work and making it better.

References

  1. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1997. Toward a uniform account of scrambling and clitic doubling. In German: Syntactic problems—Problematic syntax, eds. Werner Abraham and Elly van Gelderen, 143–161. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar
  2. Amberber, Mengistu. 2002. Verb classes and transitivity in Amharic. Münich: Lincom. Google Scholar
  3. Amberber, Mengistu. 2005. Differential subject marking in Amharic. In Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case, eds. Amberber Mengistu and Helen de Hoop, 295–319. Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1994. Clitic dependencies in Modern Greek. PhD diss., University of Salzburg. Google Scholar
  5. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1999. Conditions on clitic doubling in Greek. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. Henk van Riemsdijk, 761–798. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  6. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2001. Two classes of double object verbs: The role of zero-morphology. In Progress in grammar, eds. Marc van Oostendorp and Elena Anagnostopoulou, 1–27. Amsterdam: Roquade. Google Scholar
  7. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  8. Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baker, Mark. 2012a. On the relationship of object agreement and accusative case: Evidence from Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 255–274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baker, Mark. 2012b. “Obliqueness” as a component of argument structure in Amharic. In The end of argument structure?, eds. Maria Cristina Cuervo and Yves Roberge, 43–74. Bingley: Emerald Press. Google Scholar
  11. Barker, Chris. 2012c. Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 614–633. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baker, Mark. 2015. Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baker, Mark. 2017. Ergative case in Burushaski: A dependent case analysis. In The Oxford handbook of ergativity, eds. Jessica Coon, Diane Massam and Lisa deMena Travis, 759–781. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  14. Baker, Mark. In press. On the status of object markers in Bantu languages. In Data-rich linguistics: Papers in honor of Yiwola Awoyale. eds. Akin Akinlabi and Oluseye Adesola. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press. Google Scholar
  15. Baker, Mark, and Ruth Kramer. 2014. Rethinking Amharic prepositions as case markers inserted at PF. Lingua 145: 141–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, eds. Ana Teresa Pérez-Leroux and Yves Roberge, 49–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bleam, Tonia. 1999. Leísta Spanish and the syntax of clitic doubling. PhD diss., University of Delaware. Google Scholar
  18. Bošković, Zeljko. 2015. On second position clitics crosslinguistically. Ms., University of Connecticut. Google Scholar
  19. Broekhuis, Hans. 2008. Derivations and evaluations: Object shift in the Germanic languages. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cardinaletti, Anna. 2004. Toward a cartography of subject positions. In The structure of CP and IP, ed. Luigi Rizzi, 115–165. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  23. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. Hank van Riemsdijk, 145–234. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  24. Carstens, Vicki. 2005. Agree and EPP in Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 219–279. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2: 303–351. Google Scholar
  26. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  27. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries, the framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  28. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  29. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A’-dependencies. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  30. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A crosslinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  31. Coon, Jessica. 2017. Little v agreement and templatic morphology in Chol. Syntax 20: 101–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Culbertson, Jennifer. 2010. Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker. Language 85: 85–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Demeke, Girma A. 2003. The clausal syntax of Ethio-Semitic. PhD diss., University of Tromsø. Google Scholar
  34. Demeke, Girma A., and Ronny Meyer. 2007. Topics and topicalization in Amharic. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 28: 19–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Diercks, Michael, and Justine Sikuku. 2013. Object clitics in a Bantu language: Deriving pronominal incorporation in Lubukusu. Ms., Pomona College and Moi University. Google Scholar
  36. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  37. Eilam, Aviad. 2009. The absence of intervention effects in Amharic: Evidence for a non-structural approach. Brill Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 1: 202–254. Google Scholar
  38. Engels, Eva, and Sten Vikner. 2006. An optimality-theoretic analysis of Scandinavian object shift and remnant VP-topicalization. Linguistics in Potsdam 25: 195–231. Google Scholar
  39. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  40. Franks, Steven, and Tracy Holloway King. 2000. A handbook of Slavic clitics, New York: Oxford. Google Scholar
  41. Goria, Cecilia. 2004. Subject clitics in the Northern Italian dialects. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 1999. The formal semantics of clitic doubling. Journal of Semantics 16: 315–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Haile, Getachew. 1970. The suffix pronouns in Amharic. Papers in African Linguistics 3: 101–111. Google Scholar
  44. Harizanov, Boris. 2014. Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface: A-movement and morphological merger in Bulgarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32: 1033–1088. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Higginbotham, James. 1983. Logical form, binding, and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 395–420. Google Scholar
  46. Iatridou, Sabine. 1988. Clitics, anaphors, and a problem of coindexation. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 698–703. Google Scholar
  47. Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. Three issues in the theory of clitics: Case, doubled NPs, and extraction. In The syntax of pronominal clitics, ed. Hagit Borer, 15–42. New York: Academic. Google Scholar
  48. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  49. Kinyalolo, Kasangati K. W. 1991. Syntactic dependencies and the spec-head agreement hypothesis in Kilega. PhD diss., UCLA. Google Scholar
  50. Kramer, Ruth. 2014. Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 593–634. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Krapova, Iliyana, and Guglielmo Cinque. 2008. Clitic reduplication constructions in Bulgarian. In Clitic doubling in the Balkan languages, eds. Dalina Kallulli and Liliane Tasmowski, 257–287. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Landau, Idan. 2001. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  53. Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811–877. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–392. Google Scholar
  55. Leslau, Wolf. 1995. Reference grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Google Scholar
  56. Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. Paper presented at The 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL). Baltimore: University of Maryland. Google Scholar
  57. Marten, Lutz, and Nancy Kula. 2012. Object marking and morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Languages Studies 30: 237–253. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mullen, Dana. 1986. Issues in the morphology and phonology of Amharic: The lexical generation of pronominal clitics. PhD diss., University of Ottawa. Google Scholar
  60. Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs omnivorous number. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 939–971. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2013. Object clitics, agreement and dialectal variation. Probus 25: 301–344. Google Scholar
  62. Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The higher functional field: Evidence from Northern Italian dialects. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  63. Postal, Paul M. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt. Google Scholar
  64. Preminger, Omer. 2009. Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 619–666. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  66. Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 47–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. Reflexivity. 1993. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720. Google Scholar
  68. Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and language design. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  69. Rezac, Milan. 2004. Elements of cyclic syntax: Agree and merge. PhD diss., University of Toronto. Google Scholar
  70. Rezac, Milan. 2008. Phi-agree and theta-related case. In Phi theory, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 83–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  71. Riedel, Kristina. 2009. The syntax of object marking in Sambaa: A comparative Bantu perspective. PhD diss., Leiden University. Google Scholar
  72. Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. On the status of subject clitics in Romance. In Studies in Romance linguistics, eds. Oswaldo Jaeggli and Carman Silva-Coravalan, 391–420. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  73. Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In WH-movement: Moving on, eds. Lisa L.-S. Cheng and Norbert Corver, 97–134. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  74. Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Safir, Kenneth. 1984. Multiple variable binding. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 603–638. Google Scholar
  76. Safir, Ken. 2004a. The syntax of anaphor. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Safir, Ken. 2004b. The syntax of (in)dependence. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  78. Safir, Ken. 2015. Weak crossover. Ms. Rutgers University. Available at http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002498.
  79. Shan, Chung-chieh, and Chris Barker. 2006. Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 447–478. Google Scholar
  80. Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Suñer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 391–434. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–123. Google Scholar
  83. Van Urk, Coppe. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: a case study of Dinka Bor. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  84. Van Urk, Coppe. 2016. Pronoun copying and the realization of copies. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 33, eds. Kyeong-min Kim et al., 398–407. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar
  85. Wasow, Thomas. 1979. Anaphora in generative grammar. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Willson, Stephen. 1996. Verb agreement and case marking in Burushaski. Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics North Dakota 40: 1–71. Google Scholar
  87. Yabe, Tomoyuki. 2001. Clitic doubling and the link with possessed noun phrase constructions: The case of Amharic object marking. Paper presented at the CUNY/SUNY/NYU Mini-Conference. Google Scholar
  88. Yoshioka, Noboru. 2012. A reference grammar of Eastern Burushaski. PhD diss., Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.Georgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations