Complex anaphora in Lubukusu: Evidence for inside and outside voice

	Local anaphora in Lubukusu (Bantu, Luyia) can be achieved in constructions where more than one anaphoric marker is associated with the same predicate argument. At issue is the question of whether anaphoric markers appearing as verbal affixes are truly pronominal or are more like aspectual or agreement markers, on the one hand, and whether the phrasal anaphors that appear in construction with verbal affixes are adjuncts or true predicate arguments. Consider (1a) where the reflexive verb affix (RFM) cooccurs with the independent reflexive, AGR-eene, (1b) where the reciprocal verb affix (RCM) cooccurs with a reciprocal phrase (AGR-eene khu AGR-eene), and (1c) where the RCM and the RFM cooccur. 
1a) Bakhasi	 	bakheyeete	 		(babeene)
      Ba-khasi		ba-kha-i-yeet-e		ba-b-eene
      c2-woman		SM.C2-TNS-RFM-help-fv	c2-c2-own
     (The) women will help themselves.
  b) Enye	paka	muyetane			(mwabeene	khu	beene)
      enywe	paka	mu-yet-an-e			mwa-b-eene	khu	mwa-b-eene
      you	must	SM.c2.2pl-help-RCM-fv	c2.2nd -c2-own on	c2.2nd-c2-own
      You must help each other.
  c) Bakhasi	beyeetana		
      ba-khasi	ba-a-i-yeet-an-a	
      c2-woman	SM.c2-PST-RFM-helped-RCM-fv		
      (The) women helped both each other and themselves.
Although AGR-eene can appear as an adverbial reflexive (or DP adjunct), the use of AGR-eene in construction with the RFM does not have an adverbial reading, and in some discourse contexts is obligatory. The reciprocal phrase, which is never a DP adjunct, is always in close construction with the verb-RCM, and is obligatory in the same sort of discourse context that RFM and AGR-eene is. Finally, RCM and RFM can cooccur on a verb associated with the same argument (e.g., the object), and the result is a reading that adds reflexive relations to the reciprocal relations that hold amongst the atoms in the set denoted by the plural subject.
	The evidence suggests a more nuanced relationship between affixes and argument positions. We propose that the RFM in Lubukusu is initially merged in an a high voice node and indicates sameness of arguments without saturating them, which predicts compatibility with both passives (partial) and RCM, and its ability to cooccur with AGR-eene in affirmative contexts. The RCM competes with the passive to occupy a lower voice node (in single complement constructions) and so are never associated with the same predicate argument. 
	In addition to the evidence from morphological placement (prefix vs. extension) and the cooccurrence facts (e.g. RFM with AGR-eene or RCM), RFM and RCM behave differently in comitative constructions, in that the RCM is anteceded by the ‘semantic subject’, even when it does not match SM agreement, but RFM always follows the SM agreement (when present). If the transitive subject must enter the derivation in Spec of low voice (selected for plurality by RCM in voice), a full conjunction will antecede the reciprocal before it splits (we argue the comitative extraposes in Lubukusu - see Mchombo &Ngunga, 1994), but not the RFM, which is introduced above it. 
	The analysis suggests new points of comparison of RFM and RCM across Bantu, and raises fundamental questions about argument structure and the architecture of the VP spine.