Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace

have the same obviation status. An example of this is found in section 4.3.2.. as example
(78). 1 repeat the sentence here as example (1 1 1).
( 111) ê-wih-tapasit, II môsklstawêw aw ayîsiyiniw.
cj-int-flee.AI-3 attack.TA-(3-3') this person-3
' When he,(prox) tried to escape, the manj(prox) attacked hirnAobv). ' (P: 150-15)
- Each of these clauses contains an argument which refers to the bear. Although
these arguments are CO-referential, they do not have the same obviation status. The bear
is proximate in the subordinate clause, but obviative in the main clause. A proximate SM
has occurred between the two clauses. This is allowed because the two clauses, the
adverbial and the main clause, constitute two separate domains.
This shows us that obviation is not the same as the phi-features of person, number
and gender. Co-referentiality does not entail that the CO-referents have the same obviation
status. If it did, we would see proximate shifi restrictions in non-A-doubling (adverbial)
ciauses as well as A-doubling clauses.
So, by defining a domain as a verb, its arguments and any argument-doubling
constituents, we ensure that a matrix verb and an A-doubling clause constitute a single
domain, while a rnatrix verb and an adverbial (non-A-doubiing) clause represent two
separate domains. Within a domain, al1 instances of a referent must have the same
obviation status. Therefore, if a single referent occurs in the guise of multiple arguments
in a domain, as in example (1 08) and ( 1 10a) above, then al1 arguments of that referent
must demonstrate the same obviation status. This is not because they are al1 CO-