Download Object Markers in Amharic

Object Markers in Amharic∗
Ruth Kramer / Georgetown University
Annual Conference on African Linguistics 41 / May 6th - 8th 2010
1 Introduction
Empirical Focus: a particular morpheme that attaches to verbs in Amharic (Ethiosemitic; SOV)
• This morpheme co-varies in form with the phi-features of an internal argument of the verb
• Referred to henceforth as the object marker
(1)
Almaz doro wät’-u-n
bäll-atʃtʃ-ɨɨw
Almaz chicken stew-DEF-ACC eat.PF-3FS.S-3MS.O
Almaz ate chicken stew.1
(2)
Aster doro-wa-n
arräd-ätʃtʃ-at
Aster chicken-DEF.F-ACC butcher.PF-3FS.S-3FS.O
Aster butchered the hen. (Yabe 2001:2)
The Puzzle: is the complicated behavior of object markers best accounted for by analyzing them as…
• the reflex of object agreement (realization of a bundle of phi-features on some functional head) or as…
• doubled clitics (pronoun-like morphemes that may move to be close to the verb)?
Goals:
• to argue that object markers are best analyzed as doubled clitics (cf. Mullen 1986, Yabe 2001)
• along the way: to build up a substantial body of empirical generalizations about the object marker
The Puzzle in a Broader Perspective: a case study in how to distinguish clitic doubling from agreement in
general using multiple diagnostics (counterpart to recent work on the diagnostics themselves; cf. Preminger
2009).
2 Background
What is the difference between ‘agreement’ and ‘clitic doubling’?
• In much descriptive literature, agreement is used as a cover term for both (see e.g., discussion in
Woolford 2003)
•
∗
Focus today: there are distinct theories of agreement and of clitic doubling that make falsifiable (and
different!) predictions about their behavior
Many thanks to Mark Baker, Line Mikkelsen, Mark Norris, Aviad Eilam and Kyle Rawlins for helpful comments and
questions. Thanks also to the Amharic consultants whose judgments shaped this work, especially Mahlet Tadesse.
1 Gloss abbreviations: 1 - first person, 2 - second person, 3 - third person, ACC - accusative case, DEF - definite marker, F
- feminine, IMPF - imperfect, M - masculine, O - object marker, PF - perfect, S - subject agreement, Examples without any
attributed source are from my own fieldwork.
Ruth Kramer
ACAL 41
2.1 Theories of Agreement and Clitic Doubling
Theory of Agreement: Minimalist Agree
• I adopt a conventional Minimalist formalization of agreement in terms of the Agree relation (Chomsky
2000, 2001, 2004) -- a relation between a functional head and a DP established in the syntax.
•
(3)
A functional head with unvalued phi-features (T for subject agreement, v for object agreement; the
‘probe’) searches downwards into its c-command domain for a DP with valued phi-features (the ‘goal’).
vP
3
v [ _φ]
VP
3
V
o
o
o
DP
[val φ]
[ _ Case]
→
vP
3
v [val φ]
VP
3
AGREE
V
DP
[val φ]
[ACC Case]
When the probe finds a DP with valued phi-features, they enter into the Agree relation.
The DP values the phi-features on the probe, and the probe assigns Case to the DP (nominative
for T, accusative for v).
The valued phi-features on the functional head are realized at PF as the agreement marker (cf.
the proposals in Legate 2008).2
Theory of Clitic Doubling
• It is difficult to designate a currently conventional analysis of the phenomenon.
o A few major lines of analysis: Sportiche 1996; Uriagereka 1995, Torrego 1988, Rezac 2008;
Anagnostopoulou 1999, 2003, 2004; Bleam 1999
o The details of implementation vary (e.g., whether the clitic is moved or base-generated, whether
the clitic heads its own projection)
•
For present purposes, it is sufficient to define clitic doubling as the attachment of some kind of pronounlike head to the verbal complex whose features co-vary with those of a non-subject argument.
•
Many analyses of clitic doubling capture the pronoun-like behavior of the clitic by saying the clitics are
Determiners (D heads) that move to a position close to the verb.
o Aka the ‘big DP’ hypothesis (Torrego 1988, Uriagereka 1995; see also Anagnostopoulou
2004:Ch.4 for a variant)
•
Fundamental differences from agreement
o The clitic is a D, not a bundle of phi-features on a functional head
o Clitic doubling does not involve the valuation of phi-features
o Clitic doubling is not necessarily associated with Case assignment
These differences will suffice to distinguish clitic doubling from agreement in Amharic.
2
The agreement morpheme may be affixed or cliticized to its host. Note, then, that agreement morphemes may be
clitics in the morphophonological sense, viz. dependent elements that seem less dependent than affixes but more
dependent than ‘words.’ However, agreement morphemes are distinct from doubled clitics which come about through a
very different process.
2|Page
Ruth Kramer
ACAL 41
2.2 Previous Work on the Amharic Object Marker
•
Most previous research has referred to the object marker as object agreement (see e.g., Amberber 1996,
Amberber 2005, Engdashet 1998, Demeke 2003, Gasser 1983, Yabe 2007, Yimam 2004, 2006).
o In most cases, though, the term ‘agreement’ seems to be being used in its cover term sense and
without any particular theoretical commitment.
•
Mullen 1986 and Yabe 2001 both argue that the object markers are doubled clitics, but their arguments
do not rely on the falsifiable predictions of a theory-based approach.3
o Today: I unpack and strengthen their arguments in addition to developing new reasons to treat
the object markers as doubled clitics.
3 Evidence
Preview: three different types of evidence that the object marker is not agreement:
• morphophonology
• interaction with Case
• distribution
3.1 Morphophonological Evidence
Agreement morphemes are the realization of phi-features on functional heads.
• The realization of those phi-features may thus vary depending on other features that the functional head
itself has e.g., a past tense feature on T.
It is of course quite common for subject agreement morphemes to vary formally depending on tense crosslinguistically.
o Even in a very impoverished agreement system like English, subject agreement is null in the past
tense, but -s in the 3rd person singular present tense.4
In Amharic, subject agreement varies depending on aspect (perfect or imperfect), so it is plausible that Asp
bears the phi-features involved in subject agreement.
(4)
Perfect
a. säbbär-ku
break.PF-1S
Imperfect
ɨ-säbr
1S-break.IMPF
b. säbbär-ɨh
break.PF-2MS
tɨ-säbr
2MS-break.IMPF
c. säbbär-ä
break.PF-3MS
yɨ-säbr
3MS-break.IMPF
3
See also Halefom 1994 where the object markers are classified as clitics but there is no discussion of doubling per se.
Technically, the T and the Agr morphemes have fused into a single node that is then realized as e.g., -s or ∅ depending
on the tense feature. See Halle 1997.
4
3|Page
Ruth Kramer
ACAL 41
Object Markers: do Amharic object markers vary in this way? No!
• The form of the object marker is completely invariant (Mullen 1986) across all verb forms.
o Even though the object marker is part of the same complex head as subject agreement…
(5)
Almaz doro wät’-u-n
bäll-atʃtʃ-ɨɨw
Almaz chicken stew-DEF-ACC eat.PF-3FS.S-3MS.O
Almaz ate chicken stew.
… it does not vary based on aspect (or any other component of that complex head).
The object marker varies in form only according to the phi-features of the argument with which it is
associated.
Table 1: Object Marker Paradigm
Singular
1st Person
-ññ
2nd Person
-h (masc.) | -ʃ (fem.)
rd
3 person
-w, -t after u or o (masc.)
-at (fem.)
2nd person polite
3rd person polite
Plural
-n
-atʃtʃɨhu
-atʃtʃäw
-wo(t)
-atʃtʃäw
Object Markers as D’s: the object marker thus seems more akin to pronominals (i.e., D heads; Postal 1969)
than a bundle of phi features on a verbal functional head.
• Predicted by a clitic doubling analysis where the clitic is a D head
Object markers are also like D’s in that they are formally similar to definite determiners.
(6)
-w
3rd masculine singular object marker
-u/-w masculine singular definite determiner
o
See similar parallels in Uriagereka 1995 for Romance; Anagnostopoulou 2004:212 for Greek.
The object marker also shares parts of its paradigm with the paradigm for pronominal possessors (my, her, our,
etc; Yabe 2001).
(7)
a. bet-e
‘house-my’
my house
b. bäk’lo-h
‘mule-your.M’ your mule
c. tämari-yatʃtʃɨn ‘student-our’ our student
(Leslau 1995:50ff.)
Table 2: Pronominal Possessor Paradigm
Singular
1st Person
-e
Plural
-atʃtʃɨn
2nd Person
-atʃtʃɨhu
3rd
person
2nd person polite
3rd person polite
-h (masc.) | -ʃ (fem.)
-u (masc.) | -wa (fem.)
-atʃtʃäw
-wo(t)
-atʃtʃäw
4|Page
Ruth Kramer
o
o
ACAL 41
The object marker and the pronominal possessor are formally identical for five out of eight slots
of their respective paradigms (indicated by graying out).
Moreover, the 3MS forms, while not identical, are strikingly similar.
If the pronominal possessors are analyzed as D heads (cf. Lyons 1986, Giorgi and Longobardi 1991), then the
syncretism here is easily explained.
• Both pronominal possessors and object markers would be the realization of a D with phi-features.5
For the Sake of Completeness: the object markers do not formally resemble the subject agreement
morphemes.
• For example, the object marker and the imperfect agreement morphemes are clearly distinct.
Table 3: Object Marker vs. Imperfect Subject Agreement
Singular Object Marker
Singular Imperfect
Subject Agreement
1st Person
-ññ
ɨnd
2 Person
-h (masc.) | -ʃ (fem.)
tɨ- (masc.) tɨ…i (fem.)
3rd person
o
-w, -t after u or o (masc.)
-at (fem.)
yɨ- (masc.), tɨ- (fem.)
Reinforces the idea that the object marker is more closely formally connected to pronouns and
determiners than other agreement morphemes.
Conclusions:
• The morphophonological form of the object marker does not vary with anything at all except the phifeatures of the argument with which it is associated.
= evidence that the object marker is not agreement
•
The object marker is most similar in terms of morphophonology to determiners and pronominal
possessors
= evidence that object marker is a doubled clitic, esp. under the ‘big DP’ hypothesis.
3.2 Case
Agreement and Case in Minimalism: a tight relationship
• When v enters into an Agree relation with a DP, it necessarily values the Case feature on the DP as
accusative.
(8)
vP
3
v [ _φ]
VP
3
V
DP
[val φ]
[ _ Case]
→
vP
3
v [val φ]
VP
3
AGREE
V
DP
[val φ]
[ACC Case]
5 This idea can be straightforwardly fleshed out under the theory of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993;
more specifically, Late Insertion and the Subset Principle). Roughly, there would be a single (underspecified)
morphophonological realization of the feature bundle [D, phi-features] for all cells of the paradigm where the possessor
and the object marker are identical. Feel free to ask about the details of this in the question period.
5|Page
Ruth Kramer
•
ACAL 41
This theory leads to three falsifiable predictions, all of which are not borne out in Amharic.
First Two Predictions: accusative case is required in order to participate in object agreement
(9)
Prediction 1: Every DP that participates in object agreement will receive accusative Case.
Prediction 2: Any DP that does not receive accusative Case cannot participate in object agreement.
Both of the predictions are falsified by the fact that non-direct objects can be referenced by the object marker
(cf. Demeke 2003: Ch.3).
(10)
Aster doro-wa-n
lä-Gɨrma sät’t’-ätʃtʃ-ɨɨw
Aster chicken-DEF.F-ACC to-Girma give.PF-3FS.S-3MS.O
Aster gave the hen to Girma. (Yabe 2001:2)
Indirect Object/Recipient
(11)
ɨne kä-setɨyya-wa
and mäs’haf gäzza-hw-at
I from-woman-DEF.F a book
buy.PF-1S.S-3FS.O
I bought a book from the woman. (Mullen 1986:260)
Source
o
Similar examples can be constructed with the objects of the predicates wait for, accept from, conceal
from, buy from, steal from, come out of, flow out of, and come to (Leslau 1995:416-417, Cohen 1970:145). 6
PPs which are internal arguments of the predicate can be referenced by the object marker, regardless of
whether they receive accusative case
= evidence that the object marker is not agreement (cf. Woolford 2003 on how PPs don’t participate
in agreement).7
Prediction 3: in order to be assigned accusative Case, a direct object must enter into an Agree relation with v
and thus be referenced by an object marker.
This prediction is falsified by three facts (contra Yabe 2007).
• Fact 1: object markers are largely optional.
(12)
•
Almaz bet-u-n
ayy-ätʃtʃ
Almaz house-DEF-ACC see.PF-3FS.S
Almaz saw the house.
Fact 2: an accusative case-marked direct object is grammatical even when the verb has an object marker
for a different argument.
6
I am setting aside here the use of object markers after the preposition-like verbal markers -bb- and -ll- to represent
malefactives and benefactives, respectively (among other types of arguments). See the thorough description in Leslau
1995:424ff and discussion in Yabe 2007.
7 In many analyses of Romance clitic doubling, doubled clitics for datives are treated differently than doubled clitics for
direct objects (see e.g., Uriagereka 1995). This is supported by the fact that dative and direct object clitics are two
formally distinct series in most Romance languages. However, there is no formal distinction in Amharic (there is just
one object marker series), and some accounts of clitic doubling do conflate indirect object and direct object clitics (see
e.g., Bleam 1999, Sportiche 1996). Even if the datives and other non-direct objects are discarded though, the agreement
analysis still makes incorrect predictions.
6|Page
Ruth Kramer
(13)
•
(14)
ACAL 41
Aster doro-wa-n
lä-Gɨrma sät’t’-ätʃtʃ-ɨɨw
Aster chicken-DEF.F-ACC to-Girma give.PF-3FS.S-3MS.O
Aster gave the hen to Girma. (Yabe 2001:2)
Fact 3: in certain cases, it is ungrammatical to have an object marker reference an argument that has
accusative case.
Almaz ras-wa-n
bä-mästawät ayy-ätʃtʃ(*-at)
see.PF-3FS(-*3FS.O)
Almaz self-her-ACC in-mirror
Almaz saw herself in the mirror.
Conclusion: accusative case is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being referenced by an object
marker.
= evidence that the object marker is not agreement
•
There is no such tight connection between doubled clitics and accusative Case/case in the account of
clitic doubling sketched above, so there is no problem with these facts.
3.3 Distribution
The distribution of the object marker in Amharic is very similar to the distribution of doubled clitics in other
languages (Mullen 1986, Yabe 2001). The object marker is…
• generally optional (see above)
• triggers an (as yet) poorly-understood semantic effect or some kind of emphasis on the argument which it
references or some tighter connection between them (Haile 1970; see also Demeke 2003)
• licensed only for definite and/or specific arguments (Yabe 2001; Haile 1970)
(15)
•
(16)
Aster doro arräd-ätʃtʃ(*-at)
Aster chicken butcher.PF-3FS.S(*-3FS.O)
Aster butchered a chicken. (Yabe 2001:3)
obligatory when the direct object has been pro dropped8
a. bäll-atʃtʃ
eat.PF-3FS.S
She ate. / *She ate it.
b. bäll-atʃtʃ-ɨw
eat.PF-3FS.S-3MS.O
She ate it.
This pattern of facts is very similar to one of the most well-known cases of clitic doubling: River Plate
Spanish (see e.g., Jaeggli 1982), where clitic doubling is…
• optional for full DP direct objects
• triggers a poorly-understood semantic effect of “closeness” between the verb and the object
• obligatory for dropped pronominal objects
• conditioned by the specificity of the object9
8 There are at least two other constructions in which object marking is obligatory in Amharic: possessive sentences
(Almaz has-3FS.O a car) and experiencer predicates (Almaz is-tired.3FS.O). The possessive sentences are particularly
interesting given the connections between possessive DPs and clitic doubled DPs (see fn. 4). See Yabe 2002ab and
Ahland 2009 for discussion and description.
7|Page
Ruth Kramer
(17)
ACAL 41
River Plate Spanish
a. (Lo) vimos a Guille
(3MS) saw Guille
We saw Guille. (Jaeggli 1982:14)
b. *(Lo) vi
3MS saw
I saw him. (Jaeggli 1982:14)
In the interest of analyzing empirically similar phenomena in a similar way, this is clearly evidence in favor of
the object marker being a doubled clitic.
It is clear from large-scale typological studies like Corbett (2006) that agreement as a phenomenon does not
share this behavior.
• Agreement is not canonically optional (Corbett 2006:14-15)
• Agreement does not canonically have any semantic effects (Corbett 2006:26-27)
• Agreement is not canonically conditioned by any feature of the controller of the agreement (Corbett
2006:26)
Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the canonical behavior noted in the Corbett, e.g.
• agreement can be conditioned by definiteness/specificity (Rural Palestinian Arabic: 200-201)
• agreement can be associated with information structure (Tsez:197-1999)
• agreement is optional (Ngan’gityemerri: 14-15)10
It is not impossible that Amharic object markers would be a typologically unusual sort of agreement, but the
chance of all of these non-canonical properties occurring at once in the same language seems low.
Gaining Precision: An even more precise argument can be made using part of the same set of facts by
appealing to a diagnostic developed by Preminger (2009).
(18)
Preminger’s Diagnostic
Given a scenario where the relation R between a morpheme M and the corresponding full noun
phrase X is broken -- but the result is still a grammatical utterance -- the proposed diagnostic supplies
a conclusion about R as follows:
a. M shows up with default phi-features (rather than the features of X) → R is Agree
b. M disappears entirely → R is clitic doubling
The diagnostic begins by setting up a scenario where the agreement or clitic doubling relation is broken.
• This occurs if the morpheme and its corresponding full noun are not in a local enough relationship (e.g.,
another DP intervenes between them; aka defective intervention: Chomsky 2000, 2001)
•
In some languages, this causes the morpheme in question to surface in default form (Icelandic) =
agreement.
o The unvalued phi-features are given a default value since they cannot be valued through Agree.
9
It is also conditioned by animacy, which does not play a role in object marking for verbs that take a single direct object.
However, ongoing research by the author has found that animacy is important in determining whether the object marker
references the Theme or the Recipient in a ditransitive predicate.
10 Corbett 2006 includes clitic doubling in his survey, but notes carefully when he is using data that has been described as
clitic doubling. None of the examples cited above were described as such and some clearly cannot be clitic doubling
(e.g., the Ngan’gityemerri data is agreement between a noun and an adjective).
8|Page
Ruth Kramer
•
ACAL 41
In other languages, the morpheme in question simply does not appear in the structure (Basque)= clitic
doubling.
o Instead of there being phi-features left stranded, there is simply no generation of a clitic
Back to Amharic: It is difficult to import Preminger’s diagnostic wholesale into Amharic since the locality
conditions on object markers are still under investigation.
However, in Amharic, the relation between the object marker and the DP it refers to is only capable of being
established if the DP is definite/specific.
(19)
*Almaz lam ayy-ätʃtʃ-(*at)
Almaz cow see.PF-3FS.S(*-3FS.O)
Almaz saw a cow.
The question now becomes: how can (19) be repaired?
• If a default object marker is grammatical, then object markers are object agreement.
• If the absence of an object marker is grammatical, then the object marker is clitic doubling.
Results: a default object marker (third person masculine singular) is ungrammatical.
(20)
Almaz lam ayy-ätʃtʃ-(*ɨɨw)
Almaz cow see.PF-3FS.S.(*3MS.O)
Almaz saw a cow.
Leaving out the object marker entirely, though, is perfectly grammatical.
(21)
Almaz lam ayy-ätʃtʃ
Almaz cow see.PF-3FS.S
Almaz saw a cow.
Thus, the object marker is a doubled clitic by Preminger’s diagnostic, and not the reflex of an Agree relation.
An Important Detail: default agreement is not null in Amharic (otherwise we could not tell whether there was
default agreement in (21)).
Evidence from infinitival subjects:
(22)
wɨha mä-k’ot’t’äb Almaz-ɨn
däss yɨ-l-atall
water INF-save
Almaz-ACC happy 3MS.S-make-3FS.O AUX.3MS.S
Saving water makes Almaz happy
Conclusions:
• The distribution of the object marker is very similar to the distribution of doubled clitics in River Plate
Spanish.
= evidence for object markers being doubled clitics
• This result can be strengthened using a diagnostic developed in Preminger 2009 and according to this
diagnostic, Amharic object markers are in fact doubled clitics.
9|Page
Ruth Kramer
ACAL 41
4 Conclusion
I have argued that object markers in Amharic are doubled clitics.
• Used (mostly) arguments based on the different predictions of a theory of agreement and a theory of
clitic doubling
• Considered evidence from
o the morphophonological form of the object marker
o the interaction (or rather, lack of interaction) of the object marker with Case
o the distribution of the object marker
• Amharic as a test case for distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling
Empirical Extensions:
• possessors and experiencer predicates (obligatory object markers)
• other Ethio-Semitic languages (Chaha: Banksira 2000)
• object markers in Bantu languages (see e.g., Riedel 2009)
Theoretical Extensions:
• How exactly should clitic doubling in Amharic be analyzed?
• Can Amharic help resolve some of the debates in the field about clitic doubling?
References
Ahland, Michael. 2009. From topic to subject: grammatical change in the Amharic possessive construction. Studies
in Language 33. 685-717.
Amberber, Mengistu. 1996. Transitive alternations, event-types and light verbs. Doctoral dissertation; McGill
University.
Amberber, Mengistu. 2005. Differential subject marking in Amharic. In Mengistu Amberber and Helen de Hoop,
eds. Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 295-319.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1999. On clitics, feature movement and double object alternation. In Pius Tamanji et al.,
eds., NELS 29. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 41-55.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2004. On clitics, feature movement and double object alternation. In Arthur Stepanov et
al., eds., Minimality Effects in Syntax. 15-36.
Banksira, Degif Petros. Sound Mutations: The Morphophonology of Chaha. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bleam, Tonia. 1999. Leísta Spanish and the syntax of clitic doubling. Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries, the framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan
Uriagereka, eds. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge: MIT Press.
89-155.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz, ed. Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge:
MIT Press. 1-52.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belletti, ed. Structures and Beyond. New York:
Oxford OUP. 104-131.
Cohen, Marcel. 1970. Traité de Langue Amharique. 2nd ed. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie.
Corbett, Greville. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: CUP.
Demeke, Girma A. 2003. The clausal syntax of Ethio-Semitic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Embick, David and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 555-595.
Engdashet, Haile Eyessus. 1998. Empty categories in Amharic and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Delhi.
Gasser, Michael. 1983. Topic continuity in written Amharic narrative. In Talmy Givón, ed. Topic Continuity in
Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Typological Studies in Language 3. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
95-139.
10 | P a g e
Ruth Kramer
ACAL 41
Giorgi, Alessandra and Giuseppe Longobardi. 1991. The Syntax of Noun Phrases: Configuration, Parameters and Empty
categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haile, Getachew. 1970. The suffix pronouns in Amharic. Papers in African Linguistics 3.
Halefom, Girma. 1994. The syntax of functional categories: a study of Amharic. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Quebec at Montreal.
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: impoverishment and fission. In Benjamin Bruening, et al., eds., MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 30: Papers at the Interface. Cambridge: MITWPL. 425-449.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Ken Hale and
Samuel Jay Keyser, eds. The View from Building 20. Cambridge: MIT Press. 111-176.
Iatridou, Sabine. 1990. Clitics and island effects. In Roumyana Izvorski and Victoria Tredinnick, eds. University of
Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 2.1. Philadelphia: Penn Linguistics Club. 11-30.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 55-101.
Leslau, Wolf. 1995. Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz.
Lyons, Christopher. 1986. The syntax of English genitive constructions. Journal of Linguistics 22: 123-143.
Mullen, Dana. 1986. Issues in the morphology and phonology of Amharic: the lexical generation of pronominal
clitics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa.
Postal, Paul M. 1969. On so-called pronouns in English. In Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum, eds.
Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and Company.
Preminger, Omer. 2009. Breaking agreements: distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures.
Linguistic Inquiry 40. 619-666.
Rezac, Milan. 2008. Phi-agree and theta-related Case. In Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, eds. Phi
Theory. Oxford: OUP. 83-129.
Riedel, Kristina. 2009. The syntax of object marking in Sambaa: a comparative Bantu perspective. Doctoral
dissertation, Leiden University.
Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring, eds. Phrase Structure and the Lexicon.
Dordrecht: Kluwer. 213-276.
Torrego, Esther. 1988. Pronouns and determiners: a DP analysis of Spanish nominals. Ms., University of
Massachusetts, Boston.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26. 79-123.
Woolford, Ellen. 2003. Clitics and agreement in competition: ergative cross-referencing patterns. In Angela
Carpenter et al., Papers in Optimality Theory II. UMOP 26. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 421-49.
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.
Yabe, Tomoyuki. 2002a. On the allä morpheme in Amharic and its occurrences as an auxiliary elements [sic]. Paper
presented at The Syntax of Tense and Aspect.
Yabe, Tomoyuki 2002b. On the expressions of possession in Amharic and Somali, and their prepositional elements
lä/la. Paper presented at the CUNY/SUNY/NYU Mini Conference.
Yabe, Tomoyuki. 2007. The morphosyntax of complex verbal expressions in the Horn of Africa. Doctoral
dissertation, CUNY.
Yimam, Baye. 2004. Agreement phenomena in Amharic. In V. Böll, ed. Studia Aethiopica. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
319-336.
Yimam, Baye. 2006. The interaction of tense, aspect and agreement in Amharic syntax. In John Mugane et al., eds.,
Proceedings of ACAL 35. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 193-202.
Ruth Kramer
Department of Linguistics
Georgetown University
37th and O St., NW
Washington, DC 20057
[email protected]
11 | P a g e