Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace

(1 17) kiwâpamitin ê-ocêmîsk.
3-see. S.O.TA-( 1-2) cj-kiss. S. O.TA-(3-2)
'1 saw you, he kissed you .'
Under a sentential domains analysis, this kind of variation is allowed. We do not
posit any type of raising or copying phenornenon at work. We simply state that there must
be r-linking between the clauses in order to create a single domain which includes both the
matnx verb and the subordinate (A-doubling) clause. This view allows for some creativity
to be involved, as we saw in examples (116) and (1 17). The r-linking is not restricted to
a specific argument position, but rnay be construed witb either the subjedagent or
objectlpatient of the subordinate verb."
The copying-to-object construction was noted to be restricted ro 'complementlike'
clauses occumng with TA matrix verbs only. Under the analysis presented in this
thesis, we can provide an analysis for ihis restriction. By formulating a distinction
between A-doubling and non-A-doubling (adverbial) clauses, we can offer a succinct
analysis of why some clauses have CO-indexed arguments and some clauses don?.
Complement-like clauses (A-doubling clauses) need to be r-linked to the matrix
pronominal argument in order to receive their argumental interpretation. These clauses
are situated inside a larger containing NP, which is r-linked to an argument within the
rnatrk verb. The object argument of a matrix TA verb is CO-referential with an argument
in the subordhate clause (not necessarily the subject). A TI matnx verb has its inanimate
The r-linking of either the subordinate subjecî or object to the matrix object is not completely
unfestncted. Predorninateiy, it is the nibordinate subject that is CO-inded to the matrixpro. A precise
explmation of the restrictions on this constniction is as yet unamilable.