Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace

doubling clauses, and therefore, fom a separate domain. This is stated in (los), where
Y(PJ is CO-referential with X(PJ, but since there is no A-doubling relationship between
them, they conaitute separate domains.
{ [...X(P,)...] ) ( [...Y(PJ...] } where Y is an argument-doubling expression.
5.4.4.1 Explaining the Obviation Restriction
If we accept that argument-doubling clauses function Iike relative clauses contained inside
an NP, then there is no longer any question as to why proximate shifts are disallowed
between these clauses and the matnx verb. A-doubling clauses are r-linked to a
pronominal within the matrix clause, thus, they are a single domain. It is an accepted
constraint that a Cree clause has only one proximate constituent. If we replace 'clause'
with 'domain,' we achieve a more accurate representation of what is occumng. A
domain, in this context, includes a verb, its arguments and any constituents that double the
arguments.
This is why a proxirnate shifi is not allowed between a relative clause and its head,
as noted by both Dryer (1992) and Dahlstrom (1986). Because the head is r-linked to a
pronominal argument within the subordinate verb, it foms a chain with the argument.
The head and the subordinate clause form one linguistic domain. Therefore, any features
associated with the head must be maintained in the relative clause, including obviation.
Argument-doubling clauses are a part of a single domain, shared by the matrix
clause. Thus, if only one proximate referent is allowed per domain, we can see why