Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace

In Example (86) below, even though both clauses exhibit a cornmon referent proi
'they(prox)', the adverbial clause nâthak 'they(prox) wept ' is not constmed with an
argument in the matrix clause. Therefore there is no r-linking between the adverbial
clause and the matrix verbal cornplex.
(86) [, [, pro, -mâtôwak] [, proi-eh-wâpamâcik-pro,.]]
weep. AL3 p cj-see.s.o.TA-(3p-3')
'They(prox) wept when they(prox) saw them(obv).'
(P:248-16)
The purpose of these diagrams is to illustrate that each of the CPs is independent
from the other in tenns of CO-indexing. The subordinate CP is not iinked to anypro in the
matrix verb. There is no A-doubling relationship between the two clause^.^ 1 propose
that each clause constitutes its own domain. A domain consists ofa verb, its arguments
and constituents that are 'doubling' those arguments. Thus, an adverbial clause does not
fom a part of the same domain as the matrix clause. This will be discussed in more detail
in section 5.4.4.1, where 1 argue that the acceptability of proximate shifis between
adverbial and matrix clauses is a consequence of domains.
In the next section, 1 propose that Adoubling clauses are situated inside a larger containing NP. This
allows the subordinate clause to have a doubling relationship with a pronominal argument in the mavix
verb. At this point, I have no reason to assume that adverbial (non-Adoubling) clauses are also nominais.
They may be, but in this thesis, I am focussing on behavioun dealing with Adoubling clauses, and
adverbial clauses are king used CO pm& a conmst to the A-doubling clauses. To the best of my
kno~vledge there is no evidence to show that adverbial clauses are nominals.