Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace
Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace
Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
(81) a. ch kiskênihtam mêrîwa 6-âhkos<strong>in</strong>it<br />
John-3 know.TI-(l<strong>in</strong>an) Mary-3' cj-be. sick.A[-3'<br />
'John(prox) knows that Mary(obv) is sick.'<br />
b. ?* cân kiskênihtam II mêriy 6-âhkosit.<br />
JO hn-3 know.TL(3-<strong>in</strong>an) Mary-3 cj-be. sick. AI-3<br />
'John(prox) knows that Mary(prox) is sick.'<br />
As discussed <strong>in</strong> section 3.3.3.1.3, A-doubl<strong>in</strong>g clauses can also occur as <strong>in</strong>direct<br />
Wh-questions. Such clauses are identical to the declarative (non-Wh-) A-doubl<strong>in</strong>g clauses<br />
we have already seen, with respect to proxirnate re-assignment. There cm be no<br />
proximate shift between the matrix clause <strong>and</strong> the subord<strong>in</strong>ate clause. Examples (82) <strong>and</strong><br />
(83) conta<strong>in</strong> A-doubl<strong>in</strong>g Wh-clauses. In both of these examples, the argument <strong>in</strong> the A-<br />
doubl<strong>in</strong>g Wh-clause is obviative. This is expected, s<strong>in</strong>ce proximate status has been<br />
assigned to the referent cân 'John(prox)' <strong>in</strong> the matrix clause of each sentence. Because<br />
cân 'John' is proximate, no other referent <strong>in</strong> the matrix or A-doubl<strong>in</strong>g clause can be<br />
assigned proximate status. Al1 other referents mu4 be obviative. This is borne out, <strong>in</strong><br />
these sentences, where <strong>in</strong> (82) m2riwn 'Mary(obv)', <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> (83) awéj~hva 'who(obv)', are<br />
assigned obviative aatus.<br />
sometirnes judged io be marg<strong>in</strong>ally acceptable <strong>in</strong> isolation. This is especially true Hith obviation, perhaps<br />
because obviation is primarily a discourse h<strong>in</strong>ction. Ho~vever, the important po<strong>in</strong>t is that sentence (81a) is<br />
consistently judged to be better <strong>and</strong> more grammatical than sentence (8 lb). This is especially borne out <strong>in</strong><br />
temal sources. In Bloomfield's pubiished texts of Pla<strong>in</strong>s <strong>Cree</strong> narratives, I have found oniy one exception<br />
to the analysis presented <strong>in</strong> this paper.<br />
namoya kiskêyimêwak dntê éh-ohtohtêt aw âyahciy<strong>in</strong>iw.<br />
not know.TA-(3p-3') II where cj+ome.from.there.AI-3 thk Blackfoot-3<br />
They did not know h m where that Blackfoot had corne.' (P: 8242)<br />
Udortunately, 1 have no explanation for this exception. One possiJility is that the subord<strong>in</strong>ate clause is<br />
direct discourse, nther than <strong>in</strong>direct discoune. <strong>Argument</strong>doubl<strong>in</strong>g clauses typicdly ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> the<br />
obviation des found <strong>in</strong> the matri.. clause.