Search

Within the context of microvariation in Bantu, three processes are examined in Setswana – object marking, inversion constructions and diminutive marking. Setswana morpho-syntactic structures for these constructions present instances that distinguish Setswana from Eastern Bantu languages and yet also cases of similarity with patterns more commonly attested in Eastern rather than Southern Bantu languages. Using a comparative-parametric approach Setswana is shown to pattern with Southern Bantu in its default agreement and diminutive marking patterns while its flexibility in allowing multiple object markers with free ordering is more closely related to Eastern Bantu, suggesting complex historical patterns of contact.

We describe and analyze a novel pattern of locative inversion, passivization, and object clitics in Xitsonga, a Bantu language of South Africa. We note that, unlike in most Bantu languages, locative inversion can take place with intransitives, transitives with active voice, and transitives with passive voice. While subject marking is obligatory, object marking is optional and indicates emphasis, although the semantic details are unclear. An interesting pattern emerges with locative inversion. Object marking is possible only with passive voice. We present an analysis in which the subject and object markers are clitics that are inserted postsyntactically. The subject clitic is triggered by agreement between T and the grammatical subject. The object clitic is triggered by theta assignment by V (which raises to Asp) to the thematic object. In locative inversion, the external argument remains in situ and serves as an intervenor between V (housed on Asp) and the object. In the passive, the external argument is suppressed or appears in a by-phrase, and the object can trigger the appearance of the object clitic on Asp. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a number of Bantu languages, object marking is correlated with a definite or specific interpretation of the agreeing object DP, and similar claims about the semantic effects of object marking have also been made for Zulu (Nguni; S42). This paper examines these claims by applying a range of diagnostic tests for (in)definiteness and (non-)specificity to sentences with object-marked objects in Zulu. The paper's first finding is that agreeing objects in Zulu can violate the uniqueness requirement that holds for definite expressions, and can therefore appear in contexts in which definite DPs are not tolerated. The second finding is that object-marked objects in Zulu can take narrow scope in relation to intensional verbs and negation, in which case they are interpreted as (scopally) non-specific. Object marking in Zulu therefore cannot be regarded as a morphosyntactic device to mark definiteness or specificity. Rather, it is suggested that the interpretative effects of object marking follow from information structure: agreeing DPs in Zulu are obligatorily dislocated and hence appear outside the focus domain (the vP). Consequently, an agreeing object in Zulu is incompatible with semantic focus, which implies that it can (but crucially, does not have to) be interpreted as denoting a discourse-familiar referent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Object markers (OMs) in Bantu languages have long been argued to be either incorporated pronouns or agreement morphemes, distinguished mainly by their ability (or not) to co-occur with (i.e. double) in situ objects. Lubukusu appears to be an instance of OMs-as-incorporated pronouns, as OMs in neutral discourse contexts cannot double in situ objects in a broad range of syntactic contexts. As we show, however, certain pragmatic contexts in fact do license OM-doubling; we demonstrate that OM-doubling in Lubukusu is licit only on a verum (focus) interpretation. We analyze OM-doubling within a Minimalist framework as the result of an Agree relation between the object and a verum-triggering Emphasis head (Emph°). The non-doubling OM results from an incorporation operation. We therefore claim that Lubukusu displays two distinct syntactic derivations of OMs (generating doubling and non-doubling) with the interpretive effects of OM-doubling arising from the semantic/pragmatic properties of Emph°. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides an overview of the numerous exceptional morphosyntactic and phonological properties of the reflexive compared to other object prefixes in Bantu languages. These properties are considered in light of Marlo's (2014, 2015, to appear) micro-typological studies of Bantu object marking, and the proposal that the 1sg object prefix and the reflexive may be in a position closer to the verb stem than other object prefixes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In generative grammar, locative inversion in Bantu languages is typically analyzed in terms of A-movement of the locative from a VP-internal position to the subject position. I present an alternative analysis, according to which the locative subject-DP is introduced above the νP/VP, in the specifier of a functional category whose head selects the νP/VP as its complement. I suggest that this category is Pr (for 'predication'), i.e., the same category that also introduces the subject argument of adjectival or nominal predicates in non-verbal predication constructions (see Bowers 1993, and especially Baker 2003a for Bantu). In locative inversion, Pr establishes a non-canonical predication relation between a νP/VP that expresses a state or event, and a DP that denotes the location of which this state/event is predicated as a property. My analysis is developed on the basis of a detailed discussion of 'semantic' locative inversion in the Bantu language Zulu (Buell 2007), a construction in which the inverted subject-DP is not formally marked as a locative, but receives its interpretation solely by virtue of the locative semantics of its head noun. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]