{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03619047619047619, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.806629834254144, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Pragmatic effects of clitic doubling


 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°.