Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace

Chaptcr 4
Obviation
4.1 Introduction
We tum now to an examination of another difference between what 1 propose are
argument-doubling and adverbial clauses in Cree. The assignment of obviation statu, and
especially its re-assignment presents us with clear evidence in support of a distinction
between these clauses. In panicular, 1 will show that the re-assignment of the proximate
role is restricted between some subordinate clauses and the matrix clause. Proximate
shifts cannot occur between a matnx clause and an argument-doubling clause. In contrast,
if the subordinate clause is an adverbial clause, this restriction is lifted, and re-assignment
is left to the discretion of the speaker.
The obviation status of a participant is recognized as a feature of that argument.
However, unlike phi-features. obviation is not lexically encoded. Phi-features are features
of person, number, gender and case." They are intrinsically identified by the meaning of a
word. In Aigonquian languages, obviation is encoded in the morpho-syntax. Its value is
identified in the grammar, not in the lexicon. For example, if we consider the referent
w~ikq6s 'bear' , it will always be third penon, animate and singular. Those feature values
are inherent in this nomind. The Iexical content of the rest of the sentence does not have
any efect on these features. The significance of obviation as opposed to phi-features is
3 1
This thesis does not discuss Case in Cree. For a discussion of Case. see Dechaine and Reinholtz (1998).