Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$il\VOLVEMENT OF RETII\OIC ACID II{ - MSpace at the University of ...$

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
domains fiom the matrix verb, and do not exhibit the same behaviour as A-doubling clauses. We have also identified a more comprehensive representation of the restriction on the number of proximates found within a domain. We have shown that it is a restriction of one proximate referent per domain. This refinement. together with a treatment which accounts for the dfierences between adjunct-like and complement-like clauses also dlows us to account for restrictions on proximate re-assignment between matrix verbs and subordinate clauses.
Page 1 and 2:
Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Cla
Page 3 and 4:
THE IJNnmuTTYOF MANITOBA FACULTY OF
Page 5:
Acknowledgemenfs This thesis would
Page 8 and 9:
Notations Abbreviations and Soeciai
Page 10 and 11:
Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Cla
Page 12 and 13:
This treatment of subordinate claus
Page 14 and 15:
(1 ) Proto-Algonquian */nila/ '1' P
Page 16 and 17:
(3) a. Italian: Ha parlato. [CP[3*e
Page 18 and 19:
two NPs) can be expressed with ody
Page 20 and 21:
In Cree, however, there is evidence
Page 22 and 23:
imponantly for our purposes, he rec
Page 24 and 25:
pronominal arguments whenever NPs w
Page 26 and 27:
clauses are in non-argument positio
Page 28 and 29:
to the MVC. The CO-indexing relatio
Page 30 and 31:
would not be any such role for a CP
Page 32 and 33:
However, an examination of the subo
Page 34 and 35:
Hale concluded that the difference
Page 36 and 37:
pronominal clitics were never bound
Page 38 and 39:
Jelinek's analysis did not provide
Page 40 and 41:
theory dong the way. For some prono
Page 42 and 43:
In English, the subject cc-comrnand
Page 44 and 45:
presented above, NPs are situated i
Page 46 and 47:
(24) a. Independent: niwâpamâw c
Page 48 and 49:
Le-, more prominent in the discours
Page 50 and 51:
see.TA-(3-31) buffalo, f ' 'He saw
Page 52 and 53:
- Source b. . ., kâ-wâpamât awa
Page 54 and 55:
. pêmohtêyâhk cj. walk-along. AI
Page 56 and 57:
syntactic relationship to the matri
Page 58 and 59:
complement-like interpretation. The
Page 60 and 61:
that A-doubling clauses also occupy
Page 62 and 63:
as dernonstrated in (44). The NP an
Page 64 and 65:
3.3.3.1.2 Declarative Argument-Dou
Page 66 and 67:
to-object does not appear to be fre
Page 68 and 69:
This shows that these wh-clauses ar
Page 70 and 71:
examinhg how they behave with diffe
Page 72 and 73:
semantic relation, namely constnial
Page 74 and 75: In example (62) below, we see extra
Page 76 and 77: If an NP is in an adverbial clause,
Page 78 and 79: -linking relationship between A-dou
Page 80 and 81: that its value is not inherent in t
Page 82 and 83: the verbal morphology. In the examp
Page 84 and 85: younger sister, is proximate. This
Page 86 and 87: 4.3 Proximatt Sbifts Given more tha
Page 88 and 89: (76) kîwêw mistanask; kostêw wak
Page 90 and 91: (77) êkosi êkwah sipwêhtêw. so
Page 92 and 93: Some examples of complex sentences
Page 94 and 95: cân kiskènimêw tânitê mêrîwa
Page 96 and 97: Chapter 5 An Analysis of Adverbial
Page 98 and 99: pronominals within the verbal cornp
Page 100 and 101: discourse prominence of each partic
Page 102 and 103: In Example (86) below, even though
Page 104 and 105: argument in the matrk verbal comple
Page 106 and 107: Example (90) demonstrates that a Wh
Page 108 and 109: nominal matenal at al. The NP may c
Page 110 and 111: (95) prq-nikiskênimâw-proJ Lw aw
Page 112 and 113: eading even ifit does not contain a
Page 114 and 115: 5.4.4 Chains and Domains The CO-ind
Page 116 and 117: see. TI-(3-i11an) cj-horse. fmt. AM
Page 118 and 119: doubling clauses, and therefore, fo
Page 120 and 121: (107) ( kêtahtawê pr~~kiskêyhtam
Page 122 and 123: have the same obviation status. An
Page 126 and 127: Chapter 6 Conclusion and Further Co
Page 128 and 129: above, this analysis accounts for t
Page 130 and 131: includes the matrix clause. Without
Page 132 and 133: argument r-linked to the containing
Page 134 and 135: have subordinate clauses which refl
Page 136 and 137: Ellis, C. Douglas. 1983. Spken Cree
Page 138: Tomlin, Russ, and Richard Rhodes. 1
show all

Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?