Object Markers in Ikalanga

There is an on-going debate amongst linguists regarding the status of the object marker (OM). Some scholars argue that OMs are agreement morphology (Baker 2010, Riedel 2009) while others argue that OMs are pronominal and not agreement morphology (Nevins 2010, Kramer, under review, Labelle 2007, Demuth and Johnson 1990, Mchombo 2002). The purpose of this paper is to contribute to this debate using data from Ikalanga to support the view that OMs are pronominal clitics. I discuss evidence in favor of the agreement analysis as well as that in favor of the pronominal analysis. OMs in Ikalanga behave like agreement morphology in that they attach only to the verbal stem, only one OM occurs in a clause, and they share grammatical features (person, gender and number) with the lexical NP with which they co-refer. However, there are many ways in which OMs behave like pronominals. For example, OMs do not vary in form according to the mood of a sentence or negation while subject markers, which I analyze as agreement morphemes do. They are not obligatory in Ikalanga sentences while subject markers are. OMs are not subject to locality constraints while agreement is. They can be bound by the subject (backward pronominalization), something unexpected of agreement and there is ample evidence to show that the lexical NP with which the OM co-refers is an adjunct, a fact which has been used in the literature to argue that the OM is pronominal in such a set up. The evidence in favor of the pronominal analysis however, is more compelling and therefore I conclude that OMs are pronominal clitics and not agreement morphology