Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$il\VOLVEMENT OF RETII\OIC ACID II{ - MSpace at the University of ...$

cân kiskènimêw tânitê mêrîwa ê-itohtêmit. John-3 knows- TA-(3-3') where Mary-3' cj-go .AI-3' 'John(prox) knows where Mary(obv) went. ' cân kiskênimêw awêniwa ê-sipwêhtênit. John-3 knows . TA-(3-3') who-3' cj-1eave.AI-3' ' John(prox) knows who(obv) is leaving. ' The faa that proximate shifts are not allowed between an A-doubling clause and the matrix verb shows us two things: i) A-doubling clauses are different fiom adverbial clauses; ii) A-doubling clauses have a syntactic relationship to the matrix clause that requires the obviation features of the participants to remain unchanged. This provides more support for an analysis where the A-doubling clause has a tighter syntactic link to the matnx verb than an adverbial clause. In chapter 5. we will examine how this linkage occurs. 4.4 Concliision Obviation, then, appears to be subject to another syntactic restriction. Aside from a limit of one proximate referent per clause, the obligatory obviative status for nouns possessed by a third person, and the maintenance of obviation status between relative clauses and their heads, there is a restriction on the re-assignment of proximate status between clauses. Only certain types of clausal relations permit a proximate shift. Specifically, they can only occur between an adverbial clause and the matrix clause. A-doubling clauses must maintain the proximate reference assigned in the main clause verb.
As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, obviation provides a invaluable tool for distinguishing between these subordinate clauses in Cree. Because obviation is a noninherent feature of an argument, any restrictions on whether or not it can be changeâ reflect other phenornena at work. The consistent difference in obviation restriction between adverbial and argument-doubling clauses provides evidence to different syntactic relationships and structures. The details of these relationships will be spelled out in the next chapter.
Page 1 and 2:
Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Cla
Page 3 and 4:
THE IJNnmuTTYOF MANITOBA FACULTY OF
Page 5:
Acknowledgemenfs This thesis would
Page 8 and 9:
Notations Abbreviations and Soeciai
Page 10 and 11:
Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Cla
Page 12 and 13:
This treatment of subordinate claus
Page 14 and 15:
(1 ) Proto-Algonquian */nila/ '1' P
Page 16 and 17:
(3) a. Italian: Ha parlato. [CP[3*e
Page 18 and 19:
two NPs) can be expressed with ody
Page 20 and 21:
In Cree, however, there is evidence
Page 22 and 23:
imponantly for our purposes, he rec
Page 24 and 25:
pronominal arguments whenever NPs w
Page 26 and 27:
clauses are in non-argument positio
Page 28 and 29:
to the MVC. The CO-indexing relatio
Page 30 and 31:
would not be any such role for a CP
Page 32 and 33:
However, an examination of the subo
Page 34 and 35:
Hale concluded that the difference
Page 36 and 37:
pronominal clitics were never bound
Page 38 and 39:
Jelinek's analysis did not provide
Page 40 and 41:
theory dong the way. For some prono
Page 42 and 43:
In English, the subject cc-comrnand
Page 44 and 45: presented above, NPs are situated i
Page 46 and 47: (24) a. Independent: niwâpamâw c
Page 48 and 49: Le-, more prominent in the discours
Page 50 and 51: see.TA-(3-31) buffalo, f ' 'He saw
Page 52 and 53: - Source b. . ., kâ-wâpamât awa
Page 54 and 55: . pêmohtêyâhk cj. walk-along. AI
Page 56 and 57: syntactic relationship to the matri
Page 58 and 59: complement-like interpretation. The
Page 60 and 61: that A-doubling clauses also occupy
Page 62 and 63: as dernonstrated in (44). The NP an
Page 64 and 65: 3.3.3.1.2 Declarative Argument-Dou
Page 66 and 67: to-object does not appear to be fre
Page 68 and 69: This shows that these wh-clauses ar
Page 70 and 71: examinhg how they behave with diffe
Page 72 and 73: semantic relation, namely constnial
Page 74 and 75: In example (62) below, we see extra
Page 76 and 77: If an NP is in an adverbial clause,
Page 78 and 79: -linking relationship between A-dou
Page 80 and 81: that its value is not inherent in t
Page 82 and 83: the verbal morphology. In the examp
Page 84 and 85: younger sister, is proximate. This
Page 86 and 87: 4.3 Proximatt Sbifts Given more tha
Page 88 and 89: (76) kîwêw mistanask; kostêw wak
Page 90 and 91: (77) êkosi êkwah sipwêhtêw. so
Page 92 and 93: Some examples of complex sentences
Page 96 and 97: Chapter 5 An Analysis of Adverbial
Page 98 and 99: pronominals within the verbal cornp
Page 100 and 101: discourse prominence of each partic
Page 102 and 103: In Example (86) below, even though
Page 104 and 105: argument in the matrk verbal comple
Page 106 and 107: Example (90) demonstrates that a Wh
Page 108 and 109: nominal matenal at al. The NP may c
Page 110 and 111: (95) prq-nikiskênimâw-proJ Lw aw
Page 112 and 113: eading even ifit does not contain a
Page 114 and 115: 5.4.4 Chains and Domains The CO-ind
Page 116 and 117: see. TI-(3-i11an) cj-horse. fmt. AM
Page 118 and 119: doubling clauses, and therefore, fo
Page 120 and 121: (107) ( kêtahtawê pr~~kiskêyhtam
Page 122 and 123: have the same obviation status. An
Page 124 and 125: Lastly, we can consider an adverbia
Page 126 and 127: Chapter 6 Conclusion and Further Co
Page 128 and 129: above, this analysis accounts for t
Page 130 and 131: includes the matrix clause. Without
Page 132 and 133: argument r-linked to the containing
Page 134 and 135: have subordinate clauses which refl
Page 136 and 137: Ellis, C. Douglas. 1983. Spken Cree
Page 138: Tomlin, Russ, and Richard Rhodes. 1
show all

Adverbial and Argument-Doubling Clauses in Cree - MSpace

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?