Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace

proximate re-assignment is not found between the rnatrix verb and A-doubling clause. We
would have two proximate referents within a singfe domain, which is not al10wed.~
Adverbial clauses do not have any referential link to the matrix verb. Therefore,
they do not constitute a single domain. instead, each is its own domain, in which
obviation features may be freely assigned (syntactically, not in ternis of discourse). The
speaker cm choose to maintain or change the proximatdobviative status of the
participants according to the needs of the discourse.
It must be made clear what is being restricted in a domain. It is not only one
proximate NP or argument that is allowed in a single domain, it is a single proximate
referent. I wiil demonstrate the need for t his distinction below.
If we claimed that only one proximate NP or argument is allowed per domain, we
would certainly predict the correct representation of the sentence in (106).
(106) Sue(prox) knows that Lance(obv) kicked Vern(obv).
If Sue is proximate, then both Lance and Vem must be obviative. This is borne out by the
data. Example (107) gives a Cree sentence containing two separate referents. Because
the A-doubling clause is a part of the same domain as the matnx verb. only one of these
disjoint referents can be proximate. Since the referent in the matrix clause is proximate,
the referent in the subordinate clause is obviative.
There is one exception to rhis generalization - when mreferential arguments appear in a single domain
This is the only situation wvhich permits multiple proximates. This is discussed on p. 1 11.