Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace

see.TA-(3-31) buffalo, f '
'He saw some buffdo.'
There is a restriction on which NPs can be A-doubling NPs. Because, by
definition, these NPs are construed with the pronominal arguments, oniy NPs which can
be CO-indexed with subjects, objects and indirect objects belong to this class. These are
the only argument roles which can be represented pronorninally in the verbal cornplex.
Example (3 1) illustrates A-doubling NPs CO-indexed with a subject (3 la), an object (3 Ib),
and an indirect object (3 I c). "
(31) Sub-iect
a. êkwah pîhtwâw aw oskinikiw.
then smo ke. AI-3, this yout hosi
'Then the youth smoked.'
Ob-iect
b. sîpiy wâpahtamwak.
river, see.TL(3p-inan,)
'They saw a river. '
(P: 168-20)
Indirect Obiect
c. êkosi owîcêwâk~niwâwah êh-mâh-miyâcik,. . .
then t heir-companions-3', cj-rdpl-give.TA-(3 p-3'J
'Then when they gave them to their companions,. . '
The tenninology for refemng to the morphologicûlly-identi fted non-agentive argument in a di-transitive
verô is controve~~ial. Traditional grammars of Cree have claimed that with these verbs. the beneficiary
fiinctions ris the direct object. The verbal morphology for the beneficiary is identical to that of a direct
object in a simple transitive verb. The patientltherne is not morphologiçally mark& but is included in
the interpretation. By tenning these arguments as 'indirect object' f am claiming only that the thematic
role of these arguments is one of beneficiary. I do not want to omit this panicular thematic role in the
~lysis but readers should note that ii is mot a clearsut issue of grammatical de; Le.. direct abject or
indirect object. For more information, see Woffart (1973).