Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace

Lastly, we can consider an adverbial clause occumng with a mat& verb. Because these
non-A-doubiing clauses are not r-linked to any argument in the matrix verb, they do not
belong to the same domain. They constitute two separate domains. Therefore, just as
between separate sentences, a proximate shifi cm occur between the matrix verb and the
adverbial clause.
(1 14)
{rFocP [rP proi-êh-pihtokêt]),lI {[FOCP [sT wêmistikôsiw awah omis [ , [, pro,-îtêw-pro, ]]]]}
cj-enter.AI-3 Frenchman-3 this thus say-TA-(3 -3')
'When he(pro~Wisahk6cahk) entered, the Frenchman (prox) said:. .' (S:30-13)
Thus, the syntactic restrictions on proxirnate re-assignment follow fkom the
distinction we have made between A-doubling and adverbial clauses.
5.5 Conclusion
In this chapter, 1 have argued that the fundamental difference between complement-like
and adjunct-like clauses is not their structural position, but a difference in being an
argument-doubling expression or not. Argument-doubling clauses are situated inside of a
containing NP which is linked to a pronominal argument within the matrix verb. In this
manner, they finction just like simple A-doubling NPs. By forming a chah with the
matrix pro they create a single domain, containing both the matnx and A-doubling clause.
A domain consists of a verb, its arguments and any argument-doubling constituents.
On the other hand, adverbial clauses are not A-doubling expressions, therefore
they are not r-linked to any matrix pronominal argument. These clauses are separate