Object agreement is the realization of phi features on v, whereas clitic doubling is often analyzed as the movement of a D head in order to attach to a verb. In principle, these two phenomena are distinct, but in practice they can be difficult to distinguish. In this paper, I take up the issue for the Amharic object marker, a morpheme that co-varies with the phi features of an internal argument. Evidence from its distribution and morphological form indicate that it is a doubled clitic, but it also displays a handful of properties characteristic of agreement. Building on some of the most recent clitic doubling research, I develop an Agree-based clitic doubling analysis of the object marker that accounts for both its doubled clitic-like and agreement-like properties. Overall, the paper is a case study in how to distinguish clitic doubling and agreement in a particular language, and an investigation of how to capture the relationship between these two deeply similar phenomena in linguistic theory.
Description
Clitic doubling or object agreement: the view from Amharic | SpringerLink
%0 Journal Article
%1 Kramer2014
%A Kramer, Ruth
%D 2014
%J Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
%K amharic ethiopic
%N 2
%P 593--634
%R 10.1007/s11049-014-9233-0
%T Clitic doubling or object agreement: the view from Amharic
%U https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9233-0
%V 32
%X Object agreement is the realization of phi features on v, whereas clitic doubling is often analyzed as the movement of a D head in order to attach to a verb. In principle, these two phenomena are distinct, but in practice they can be difficult to distinguish. In this paper, I take up the issue for the Amharic object marker, a morpheme that co-varies with the phi features of an internal argument. Evidence from its distribution and morphological form indicate that it is a doubled clitic, but it also displays a handful of properties characteristic of agreement. Building on some of the most recent clitic doubling research, I develop an Agree-based clitic doubling analysis of the object marker that accounts for both its doubled clitic-like and agreement-like properties. Overall, the paper is a case study in how to distinguish clitic doubling and agreement in a particular language, and an investigation of how to capture the relationship between these two deeply similar phenomena in linguistic theory.
@article{Kramer2014,
abstract = {Object agreement is the realization of phi features on v, whereas clitic doubling is often analyzed as the movement of a D head in order to attach to a verb. In principle, these two phenomena are distinct, but in practice they can be difficult to distinguish. In this paper, I take up the issue for the Amharic object marker, a morpheme that co-varies with the phi features of an internal argument. Evidence from its distribution and morphological form indicate that it is a doubled clitic, but it also displays a handful of properties characteristic of agreement. Building on some of the most recent clitic doubling research, I develop an Agree-based clitic doubling analysis of the object marker that accounts for both its doubled clitic-like and agreement-like properties. Overall, the paper is a case study in how to distinguish clitic doubling and agreement in a particular language, and an investigation of how to capture the relationship between these two deeply similar phenomena in linguistic theory.},
added-at = {2018-02-25T22:14:58.000+0100},
author = {Kramer, Ruth},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2c0dfb0eb3d61c0156291f45e91c9a0e8/asmelash},
day = 01,
description = {Clitic doubling or object agreement: the view from Amharic | SpringerLink},
doi = {10.1007/s11049-014-9233-0},
interhash = {86b359da428cdba3c89d001d6aa4b625},
intrahash = {c0dfb0eb3d61c0156291f45e91c9a0e8},
issn = {1573-0859},
journal = {Natural Language {\&} Linguistic Theory},
keywords = {amharic ethiopic},
month = may,
number = 2,
pages = {593--634},
timestamp = {2018-02-25T22:14:58.000+0100},
title = {Clitic doubling or object agreement: the view from Amharic},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9233-0},
volume = 32,
year = 2014
}