Relative clauses in Sesotho

Abstract

This dissertation has attempted to give an exposition of the structure of relative clauses in Sesotho. Firstly, we realized that the process of relativization displays the recursive nature of the Sesotho language wherein one sentence is embedded as a subordinate clause of another and by so doing an infinite number of clauses can then be implemented to qualify a Noun Phrase !n the introduction I made it very clear that I will restrict myself to the view that in relative clauses a VVH-word is moved from an argument position to Comp. I have demonstrated that Sesotho data does support this view. 'vVhere Sesotho data poses a bit of a problem is in the cases where traces are substituted by resumptive pronouns. I have not attempted to address theoretical problems presented by this because my aim is to demonstrate my understanding of the theory which I was taught in the Coursework lectures and to show that I can do research. I believe that I have achieved that 'Nhidll had set to do within the scope of this dissertation. I have also not tried to argue against the view that clitics such as the reflexives and the object clitics are not anaphoric pronominals or non-anaphoric pronominals respectively. This is the view which I was taught during the lectures. It is supported by the relevant literature. 1 believe that it is possible that future wor'K on these aspects might even prove this view untenable. In conclusion I have observed that what the traditional grammarians, Cole (1 955) and Doke and Mofokeng ( 1957) regard as the relative clauses of direct relationship and indirect relationship involve movement of WH constituent from the argument position to Comp. An empty category is also created in the subject or whatever argument position when such movement takes place Such an empty category always requires a proper governor to govern it. I have also observed that sometimes when ~ is used in the relative clause of indirect relationship, resumptive pronoun does not need to appear. Finally, I have noticed that When a compound tense ts involved in a relat1ve construction, it is the grammatical and not the lexical verb which seem to attract the relative suffix -ng. This is also in line with the C-command principle.