Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace

argument positions. Foiiowing the distinctions and theories already established for NPs in
pronominal argument languages, I have proposed that subordinate clauses can be
distinguished in the same way. Like A-doubling and oblique NPs, we distinguish two
types of subordhate clauses, namely A-doubiing and adverbial clauses.
The distinction between these two clause types is based on referential-linking. A-
doubling clauses are r-linked to a pronominal argument within the matrix verb, while
adverbial ciauses are not. This r-linking creates a chain. which means that the A-doubling
clause and the matrix clause constitute a single domain. Much of the behaviours we
identified for A-doubling clauses follow from thi~.'~
Furthemore, this analysis allows us to gain new perspectives on two issues.
Firstly, instead of a restriction of only one proximate referent per clause, we see now that
it is a question of only one proximate referent per domain. This allows greater
explanatory power to the obviation data we have examined.
As well, we gain a new perspective on the copying-to-object construction. We
now see this phenornenon as a pan of a more general pattern of domain creation. An A
doubling clause must be r-linked to the marrix clause in order to get its argumental
reading. It cannot get this reading from its structural (non-argument) position.
Obviously there are many more questions yet to be answered. For now, this
analysis has solved an apparent paradox: how Cree, a pronominal argument language, can
This analysis, however, does not provide an explanation for the e.mction behaviour of A-doubling
clauses. Extraction data was used only to illustrate a difference berneen Adoubling and non-Adoubling
clauses. This area still needs hinher resexch.