Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace

eferential, but because they are al1 co-rrferentiaï within a single domacin. This situation is
found with A-doubling clauses, while it is not found in adverbial clauses.
If we take a second look at some of the examples we have already investigated in
chapter 4 and 5, we can see how this account of domains predicts the behaviour of
adverbial and argument-doubling clauses with respect to proximate shiffs.
know.TA-(3-3')
cj-become. s1eepy.A.I-3'
'He knew that she was sleepy.' (S : 258-26)
The sentence in (112) is comprised of a TA matnx verb and an argument-doubling clause.
The containing NP is r-linked to the object argument in the matrk verb, i.e., the clause is
a pan of the sarne domain as the matrix verb. A restriction of one proximate referent NP
per dornain entails that the subject of the subordinate verb cannot be proximate. That role
is already assigned to the subject argument of the matrk verb. Thus, a proximate shifl is
not allowed between the clauses. We see the exact same relationship occurring in (1 13)
where an argument-doubling clause is found with a TI matrix verb. The clauses fom a
single domain, and a proximate shift is not allowed between them. There is already one
proximate referent as the subject argument of the matrix verb, therefore the subject of the
subordinate argument, which is a different referent, must be obviative.
(1 1 3) ( kêtahtawê pro;kiskêyihtam-qro, [yj ayisiyiniwah kisiwâk [m pro,-êh-ayâyît]] ) .
presenti'y hm. TA-(3-inmn) person-3' nrar cbbe. Al-3 '
'Presedy, she, knew that sorne person, was near.' (P: 154-02)